[WikiEN-l] BJAODN restored again

[Anthony]

On 6/11/07, David Mestel <david.mestel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Public domain is not a license.
>
> Maybe not, but the point still stands - you can't licence someone else's
> work.
>
If you are the joint author of a work, you can license it.  If you
have permission from the other person, then you can license it.

> >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.
>
What you're missing is that the authors of a work don't have to follow the GFDL.

> >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?
>
If there is a joint authorship agreement, then that governs the
authors rights.  If not, then each author owns an undivided interest
in the entire work, essentially like a [[concurrent estate]].