On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > Granted, including full change histories is overkill > > Thanks for acknowledging this. > > The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three > different purposes: > > * author credit on the title page; > * author copyright in the copyright notices; > * author names for tracking modifications in the history section. > That may have been the intention of the author of the GFDL (though you haven't proven this). But the simple fact of the matter is that the history section *does* provide credit to *all* the authors. Thus, the rest of your convoluted argument is irrelevant. There is a legitimate > argument that, under a literal reading of the GFDL, any re-user _also_ > has to include a full copy of the change history. The problem with that argument is that "the change history" isn't in the format or location that "the section entitled 'History' would be". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
