[WikiEN-l] BJAODN restored again

[David Mestel]

>Public domain is not a license.

Maybe not, but the point still stands - you can't licence someone else's
work.

>I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it.  Take a
>look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/  AFAICT there is no
>history section.

No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written and
then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a
Wikipedia article.

>A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the
>intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or
>interdependent parts of a unitary whole."  (USC title 17, section 101)
>I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one
>could argue against it.

Regardless of the merits of that claim, what are its repercussions?

David



On 11/06/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/07, David Mestel <david.mestel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's
> work
> > >into the public domain.
> >
> > Or indeed under any other licence.
> >
> Public domain is not a license.
>
> > >Why?  Let me get this straight.  Say my friend and I write a book
> called
> > >"Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL.  I write some
> > >sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and
> then he
> > >modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc.  Then we
> start
> > >printing copies.  We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever.  Do we
> include
> > >a history section?  What would the history section look like?
> >
> > "Title: "Big Cats", Year: 2007, Authors: Anthony DiPierro and Joe
> Bloggs,
> > Publishers: Anthony DiPierro and Joe Bloggs".
> >
> I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it.  Take a
> look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/  AFAICT there is no
> history section.
>
> ---
>
> A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the
> intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or
> interdependent parts of a unitary whole."  (USC title 17, section 101)
> I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one
> could argue against it.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David