If you have permission from the other person, then you
can license it.
But you don't, do you?
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/11/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)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]].
_______________________________________________
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