[WikiEN-l] the document vs. everything vs. the text

Wed Aug 11 12:28:56 UTC 2004

> We say "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free
> Documentation License" -- note the phrase "all text", not "all content" --
> and then we give a link to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which explains things
> in more detail (especially in section 1.2, at least on [[w:en:]]).

I've spoken with Jimbo about this exact point back in February, and he
responded to me that it "is *not* a claim that _only_ text is available
under the terms of the GNU FDL."  Furthermore, the GFDL requires that the
*entire document* is released under the GFDL, and that's exactly what
Wikipedia:Copyrights does.  See this edit made by Jimbo after I spoke with
him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&diff=2457295&oldid=2428454

That said, the use of the words "the Document" intentionally avoids the
issue of what the organisation intends to be releasing (and indeed whether
or not they are releasing anything or if instead they are merely acting as a
common carrier for the documents published by Wikipedians).  I'd like to see
this spelled out, and now that there's a board of directors a committee
could be formed to do so.

I can see why the organisation might not want to do so.  After all, it's
much easier to just adapt your position to whatever is convenient for
whatever legal situation you get into.  But as a free encyclopedia I think
there is a responsibility to give people some *official* explanation as to
how they can legally reuse the product.  A page freely editable by any admin
which uses weasel words like "You may be able to partially fulfill the
latter two obligations by..." doesn't really cut it.  Something like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying gets a little
closer.

Alternatively, of course, it's perfectly reasonable for the organisation to
say that it does not claim any copyright on the encyclopedia at all, that it
is a work of the Wikipedians and Wikipedia is merely a service provider.
>From a legal standpoint this might even be the best position to take, as it
fits in best under the OCILLA protections.  But once a print edition is
made, someone has to step forward and take the liability as publisher.

> -- Toby

Anthony