[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 2009/1/11 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > Granted, including full change histories is overkill
>
> Thanks for acknowledging this.
>
> The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
> different purposes:
>
> * author credit on the title page;
> * author copyright in the copyright notices;
> * author names for tracking modifications in the history section.
>

That may have been the intention of the author of the GFDL (though you
haven't proven this).  But the simple fact of the matter is that the history
section *does* provide credit to *all* the authors.

Thus, the rest of your convoluted argument is irrelevant.

There is a legitimate
> argument that, under a literal reading of the GFDL, any re-user _also_
> has to include a full copy of the change history.


The problem with that argument is that "the change history" isn't in the
format or location that "the section entitled 'History' would be".