On 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@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]].