[WikiEN-l] BJAODN restored again

[K P]

On 6/12/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> > The Cunctator schreef:
> > > That's a prima facie misinterpretation of the GFDL. The "section" it
> > > is referring to is obviously a Secondary Section:
> >
> > Why do you think so? It's not obvious to me.
>
> Because it tells you how to create the section entitled History if a
> Document does not have one, and it is talking about the history of the
> Document's authorship.
>
> Also because it would be absurd to author history in a chapter about
> the history of London.
>


There's not really much that's obvious about the document.
Suggestions that it requires attaching the GFDL to images get met with
suggestions of how to cirumvent the law (legally versus in practice,
etc.).  Questions between two people get variuos interpretations even
when dealing with documents.

It needs fixed sooner, not later.

KP
>