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

Tue Jul 11 20:45:54 UTC 2006

On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
Surely a statement from the chief executive of the WMF (who also
happens to be a lawyer), stating that they do not consider themselves
to be a publisher, would make it unlikely that a court would find
someone in violation of the GFDL due to the fact that they failed to
name the WMF as the publisher.

Alternatively, a statement from the chief executive of the WMF,
stating that they do consider themselves to be a publisher, would make
it unlikely that a court would find someone in violation of trademark
law due to the fact that they *did* name the WMF as the publisher.

Finally, even ignoring the legal issues, it'd be really nice to know
what the WMF *wants* people to do.

Whether or not Wikimedia is a publisher for the purposes of the CDA is
one thing - for that question you're right that a court ruling is the
only way to know.  But whether or not Wikimedia is a publisher *for
the purpose of the GFDL* is another matter altogether, since
presumably Wikimedia would be the only one with standing to sue over
neglecting to name it as the publisher of a GFDL work.

Anthony