[Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit (was: Wikibooks for sale)

[Anthony]

On 7/4/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It would also be nice
> >>to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia
> >>claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.
> >>
> >>
>
> Under US Law, Wikimedia is the "publisher" because they create
> "collections" of works of the
> Wikipedia site and "publish" them to the world as XML dumps. Whether
> electronic or in book form, they
> are publishing. This being said, given the nebulous and undefined state
> of internet IP law,
> whether they are a publisher or not, there's no legal precedence to
> determine liability, so at present
> they are operating in an area of experimental law on the frontiers of
> human knowledge.

It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the
Internet, though.  The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all.  The
more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
interpretation.

Ultimately, it's grey area to the point where it would greatly improve
matters if Wikimedia would make an official statement as to how it
wants to be treated.  Does Wikimedia want to hold a copyright interest
in works other than the logos?  Does it want to be considered a
publisher *for the purposes of the GFDL*?  Any of the four
combinations of answers are acceptable, but until one is chosen the
content is that much less Free.  This is especially true when an
employee of the foundation implies that playing it safe and assuming
the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a publisher is
somehow a violation of trademark law.

Anthony