A few more words on the issue: > On 2005-12-31 16:30, Eran Tromer wrote: > [2] You can claim that the smallest Wikipedia unit which literally > "contains a notice" is the full article page, including its formatting > and footer. This may be technically correct, but far from being > sufficiently clear and obvious to guarantee successful enforcement.
Note that such interpretation would also lead to the absurd situation where adding more GFDL notices (say, at the bottom of every page in your book) would *reduce* your enforceable rights, because each marked unit would become independently subject to the "verbatim copying" clause instead of only the more restrictive "modified version" clause. My conclusion is that to be effective, every usage of the GFDL should explicitly designate the scope of the "Document" it refers to. Alas, GNU's guidelines (in the license itself and on their website) never address this, since they have only monolithic "manuals" in mind. My feeling is that the usage of the GFDL in Wikipedia has stretched it far beyond the GFDL's design goal, and possibly past effectiveness. Eran --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
