Gregory Maxwell schreef:
On 8/23/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
A. The title of modified versions is not distinct. B. No authors are listed on the title page. C. No publisher is listed on the title page. 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. 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.
Quite simply, you're either totally bind or batshit insane. If it's the former your screen reader needs a serious upgrade, if it's the latter I can't help you.
He's also completely right.
If you define a "Document" to mean a single page of Wikipedia, there is no way to satisfy the requirements of the GFDL to the letter. Anthony also claims that there is no way to define "Document" so that we're in complience; I don't know if that is true, but it seems likely.
The reality is that Wikipedia relies on its contributors not to take the GFDL completely litterally. And then, we go mad when someone else republishes our content without following the GFDL.
Eugene