[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

Fri Jul 14 22:03:46 UTC 2006

On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> >Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
> >(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
> >place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle
> >of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
> >(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
> >the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means
> >of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
> >receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
> >in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
> >
> >Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the
> >definition of "publication".
> >
> I don't doubt that this is a part of US law.  The point really is does
> the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words)
> in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation
> law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?
>
Well, this thread was talking about the term "publish" in terms of the
GFDL.  I said that there was "a reasonable argument that these works
are in fact not yet published at all" in that context.  You responded
that "If it has been made public it has been published.  The real
question here is _who_ did the publishing."

I don't think it's a given that "it has been published".  I think
there's a reasonable argument that Wikipedia is a joint work of
authorship that is still a work in progress, and that the original
publisher is whoever first takes that content and produces a work
which can legitimately be seen as a single GFDL document.

It's like if RMS and ESR get together and work on a novel.  They
wouldn't have to add a line in the history section every time they
pass a working copy back and forth.  No, they'd finish the novel, put
both their names on it as co-authors, and then publish it as the
original publication.

This doesn't fit nearly as neatly for Wikipedia, but neither does any
other interpretation.

Anthony