Angela wrote: I'm puzzled as to who came up with the idea that 17 USC 108 applies to page histories. The section applies to "libraries and archives", but I think it's a very strained reading to try and say it has anything to do with Wikipedia. Section 108 makes several references to premises, which suggests to me that it has in mind libraries and archives as physical facilities in "meatspace". Also, it limits reproduction/distribution to a single copy (three for unpublished works). If we have copyright infringements in page history, in many cases there will be more than one copy; the violation may not have been discovered until a number of revisions passed. The application of this section is quite limited, and I do not think we should be relying on it. Congress apparently intended this section to cover things like preservation or replacement of documents, and interlibrary loans of excerpts or out-of-print materials. The notes for this section are instructive: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000… While I understand the concern about potentially infringing materials in page histories, I don't think it warrants a special disclaimer. Since every revision of an article is arguably licensed separately under the GFDL, it would therefore require a statement that the GFDL applies. The current software message does not satisfy that. I think it would be better to use the same message that appears on current versions, which, after all, have the same potential problem. I don't see this message on history pages for our other projects, and we ought to keep this consistent. If a copyright holder complains specifically about infringement in the page history, I believe we can deal with the issue at that point. Based on the discussions I've seen, I understand the developers can purge portions of text from individual revisions if necessary. In the meantime, I think this is an unnecessary and ultimately ineffective disclaimer. --Michael Snow