On 5/16/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Right. Section 6: Collection of Documents:
In order to be in compliance with the GFDL you need to be in compliance with the whole thing, not just one section.
What other sections are we not compliant with? I thought that this was the big one...
It's hard to even apply the GFDL to Wikipedia. You say it's a collection of Documents, so what would be an example of a Document, as it applies to Wikipedia? Where is the Title Page? Where is the section entitled History? Who is the Publisher? Is each new version published as a derivative of the previous under the permission of the GFDL, or is it a joint work of authorship? Where are the copyright notices?
Answer these questions and I can tell you how Wikipedia is not compliant.
The articles themselves are licensed under the GFDL, and Wikipedia is a collection of articles - so the individual copies are replaced by a single copy *included in the collection*. IANAL but it's good enough for me, /and most other contributors/. What's *not* good enough is mirroring us without even *attempting* GFDL compliance, at least to the same extent that Wikipedia itself complies with the GFDL.
And how would you suggest they do that?
That's a list of sites which people believe range in compliance from low to high. It doesn't in any way answer my question.
(By the way, I see that Answers.com, the site which Wikimedia is business partners with, isn't even listed under High compliance. That's a good example of how ridiculous GFDL compliance with Wikipedia is.)
Anthony