For example see here
_http://www.answers.com/Johnson_ (http://www.answers.com/Johnson)
Answer.com has copied verbatim OUR work on President Andrew Johnson and
collated it all with various other biographical articles on him.
In the section for our article which is quite near the bottom of this page,
not only do they *not* attribute it to any particular authors, they also do
*not* even cite the GFDL.
So if the Foundation isn't interested in suing them to enforce it, then
we're not left with anything that can be sued against. The *community* is hardly
likely to instigate a lawsuit against Answers.com for what... breach of
contract maybe?
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/4/2008 2:30:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Nyet straightforward copyright violation. If you don't follow the
terms of the GFDL you are in violation of copyright.
That said the GFDL is such mess that it is near impossible to do so.>>
-----------------------------------
Impossible to do what? Violate it?
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/4/2008 2:19:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
suggests I may just be temporarily insane), while you only have
to include 5 authors on the title page as authors (plus yourself and
anyone working directly with you), you have to include all the
copyright notices, which is one per modification (which would be all
the names)...
-------------------
Notice that you're quoting beyond Section 2.
There is no direct evidence that Section 2 cannot stand solely on it's own
without the need for Section 3 or 4 in certain circumstances.
If Section 2 *always* needs Section 4, then why is there a section 2 at all.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
First in this thread.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: 6 Apr 2008 22:09
Subject: Random "how the world feels" from London PM
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On Thursday night, I went to London PerlMongers social drinks and
guzzled ridiculous quantites of Adnam's Oyster Stout and talked
rubbish with geeks.
Minor anecdotal notes on our public relations with the advanced geek crowd:
* They really wish MediaWiki had decent WYSIWYG editing - Wikipedia's
wikitext is so full of template code it repels casual editors. I
explained the technical problems ("it's not a parser, it's a twisty
maze of regexps" - they recoiled in horror) and that we're working on
it. (Current status: promising vaporware.) They want WYSIWYG editing
because they want to be able to say "no" to installing Confluence,
which is horrible to administer and not much better to use.
* I told the story of why MediaWiki is written in PHP. (Magnus had
read up on PHP to make some changes to NuPedia code, and decided he
needed a project. So Phase 2 is Magnus' first ever proper PHP program
...)
* They really want machine-readability from Wikipedia. The infobox
templates on Wikipedia are getting there. Mostly what they need is
standardisation (is the image called "image", "Image" or "Img"?), and
a base template that's {{Persondata}} or a reasonable approximation.
This is a matter of parser-functions in the template wikitext on the
'pedia, but it's something someone needs to take on as a project: to
re-plumb the templates without breaking the nice exposed external
interface. Who knows parser-function code and is feeling ambitious and
patient?
- d.
Compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria
with a screenshot from the movie "National Treasure 2":
http://magnusmanske.de/nt2_qv.png
They also briefly show a page about a "Malcolm Gilvary", which we
apparently don't have. Considering that page starts with "A [unreadble
bold words]", I'll assume it's just another one of ours, with a new
title. I can't make outwhich one, though.
Magnus
In a message dated 5/4/2008 2:03:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah, it's pretty academic. You'll note that my first email to this
thread started with the word "technically". I know that in practise
people aren't very strict in enforcing the GFDL, but that doesn't
change what the license actually says.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The problem lies in consistent application of the interpretation. If we
ignore mirrors who are already ignoring any attribution other then "from the
Wikipedia article such-and-so" then we have no one to blame for that.
If we force any re-distributor of mass-market to list *all* authors then we
will have zero redistributors of mass market. So we should simply say, we
don't allow redistributions to mass market instead of trying to create a
situation where people think they can, and then get slammed for trying it.
If we as authors are going to want attribution to ourselves, we should just
make our own wikis in the first place. I have no problem with the work I've
done within Wikipedia, being attributed simply to "Wikipedia". I've formed
the opinion that true excellence can only be realized solely, not in the
collective. So our work is essentially comprehensive, but mediocre. Global yet
mundane :)
Hmm I should really add that to my article on Ayn.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
How about this concept.
No one has ever, nor is likely to ever, be sued, by ignoring the GFDL,
whether it says one thing or the other.
You're welcome to link up any lawsuit you can find that is based on a
violation of the GFDL. Otherwise this entire discussion is really academic isn't
it.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/4/2008 1:38:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
Says who? The content has nothing to do with Wikipedia, it just uses
it. The copyright is owned by the authors and it's them you need to
attribute it to. Could you cite which clause of the license you're
referring to?>>
---------------------
Copyright? Uh..... are you sure you're understanding the entire concept
here?
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/4/2008 12:54:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
So what you do have to do if you're just distributing unmodified text?
You certainly have to provide some kind of attribution...
-------------------------
The requirement under the license for unmodified text is simply to state
something like
"This is from the Wikipedia article "Wikipoopians United" '
That's it.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
