However, there is another interpretation: that every
version of an article
is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore
there is no need for a history section at all
OK, in that case, what stops me from "independently publishing" it as an
*original* Public Domain work?
Think of it this way: if 2
people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they
wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them
made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in
progress).
Um... no, but they (or rather anyone reproducing a modified version) would
have to include a history section listing the authors (i.e. themselves).
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/10/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That requires a pretty twisted definition of
"the Document", though,
consisting of multiple dynamically generated pages
But presumably when I edit someone else's version of a page, I/Wikipedia
am/is distributing a modified copy of the Document, so there needs to be
a
History section as part of it under section 4.I.
Along with a dozen other requirements which aren't followed.
However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article
is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore
there is no need for a history section at all. Think of it this way: if 2
people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they
wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them
made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works
in
progress). Now change 2 to 50 and apply it to a typical Wikipedia
article.
Trying to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is humorous
sometimes...
Indeed...
David
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David