[WikiEN-l] joint authorship

[Eugene van der Pijll]

Thomas Dalton schreef:
> > A. The title of modified versions is not distinct.
> 
> Maybe. You could consider the URL to be the title, in which case they
> are distinct.

Actually, the GFDL says the title of the modified version should be
distinct from the titles of all previous versions. If the URL is the
title, this is clearly not the case.

> > B. No authors are listed on the title page.
> 
> The authors are listed one page away from the document itself - you
> could even consider the History page to be the title page, I guess.

I'm sure Anthony meant "Title Page" (the term used in section 4B)
instead of "title page" here.

For the purposes of the GFDL, "Title Page" has a very specific
definition: "For works in formats which do not have any title page as
such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of
the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text."
(section 1.)

As we do not have a title page for every document, "Title Page" means
the text at the top of the page, maybe including the sidebar and the
tags on the top. It does not contain the authors. It does contain a link
to the history, but that is not enough. (For "real documents",
mentioning the original authors in the Changelog of a document is not
enough to satisfy the requirements.)

> 
> > C. No publisher is listed on the title page.
> 
> The publisher is Wikipedia, surely? That's stated in plenty of places.

But not in the "Title Page". If Wikipedia is the publisher... If the
wikipedians themselves are the publishers of the pages, they are not
mentioned anywhere on the page itself.

> > D. There are no copyright notices.
> > E. There are no copyright notices.
> > F. There are no copyright notices and no license notice in the form of
> > the addendum listed in the GFDL.
> > H. There is no copy of the license.
> 
> Have you looked at the bottom of the page? Where it says "All text is
> available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." with
> the words "GNU Free Documentation License" linking to a local copy of
> the license?

Our [[Copyright notice article]] conveniently links to
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html, which describes exactly what
a copyright notice looks like: "Copyright 200x John Doe1, John Doe 2".
Nothing more, nothing less, except that you can use a C in a circle
instead of the word copyright, and perhaps you may get away with
replacing the names by "Wikipedia contributors". No such text appears on
our articles.

And a link to the license is not enough to satisfy the GFDL. The
Document should "include an unaltered copy of this license", and as you
have defined "Document" to mean the single article, it does not satisfy
this requirement.

> > I. There is no section entitled History for most pages.  For those
> > pages where there is a section entitled History, it doesn't have any
> > of the required information.
> 
> What? Every page has a history... what are you talking about?

Read the definition of "section Entitled History". It is a subunit of
the document, not a link.

Eugene