[Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit (was: Wikibooks for sale)

Tue Jul 11 20:16:05 UTC 2006

Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>It would also be nice
>>to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia
>>claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.
>>    
>>
>
>This is the first time this has come to my attention, and I would also
>appreciate a response on this issue. The GFDL explicitly requires the
>"publisher" to be credited in the history of modified versions
>(section 4.I), though not in the title (indeed, it explicitly states
>that the new publisher should be credited instead). It does not
>provide a definition for the term "publisher." It is not our current
>practice to require publisher credit to the WMF, though it is also
>somewhat unclear when section 2, "Verbatim Copying" and when section
>4, "Modifications" would apply; "Verbatim Copying" only places minimal
>requirements on third parties.
>
>Does the WMF consider itself the publisher?
>
>I think it would be quite important to have a legally authoritative
>interpretation of the GFDL as it applies to Wikimedia Foundation
>project content. So far we've been basically "playing it by ear" when
>it comes to GFDL compliance. 
>
Whether WMF considers itself a publisher is a matter of policy.  A 
"legally authoritative interpretation" is a different matter, and no 
lawyer's interpretation in an opinion letter will be authoritative.  
Legal authority can only come from real court decisions.

Ec