On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:09 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
> vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
> questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
As per previous discussion and
[[Wikipedia_talk:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License]] Duncan
Harris made this comment which I agree with
"The way I see it the Document referred to in the GFDL cannot be
an individual Wikipedia article. It has to be the whole of Wikipedia.
If the Document were an individual article then Wikipedia would be in
breach of its own license. Every time people copy text between
articles then they would create a Modified Version under the GFDL.
They mostly do not comply with GFDL section 4 under these
circumstances on a number of points.
So the only sensible interpretations are the whole of English
Wikipedia or the whole of Wikipedia as the GFDL Document. This has the
following implications for GFDL compliance: - only need to give
network location of Wikipedia, not individual articles - only need to
give five principal authors of Wikipedia, not of individual articles -
no real section Entitled "History", so no requirement to copy that"
Roll on a better license, we all agree.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
