[Foundation-l] Let's switch to CC-BY-SA

Tue Sep 11 18:01:23 UTC 2007

2007/9/11, geni <geniice at gmail.com>:

> > In what respect? What warped interpretation of "the text near the most
> > prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of
> > the body of the text" do you use so that the previous authors (or at
> > least 5 major ones) as well as the new author are mentioned there?
> >
>
> The history page.

Still I don't see how to warp either the term or the definition of
"title page" to have it include the history page.

> > > > * C is broken (wikipedia is mentioned on the 'title page', but not
> > > > being a formal entity can't be the publisher, that is, I guess, the
> > > > WMF)
> > >
> > > No WMF is a service provider. Publisher is the author.
> >
> > Still not mentioned.
> >
>
> On the history page.

Which still is not by any stretch of definition the title page.

> > > > * D is trivially adhered to (there are no copyright notices on
> > > > Wikipedia pages, so they are indeed kept)
> > > > * E is broken (the copyright notice as required by the GFDL is not shown)
> > >
> > > See that notice at the end of the article
> >
> > That's a copyright notice? It doesn't say who holds the copyright, for
> > one thing.
>
> So what? No requirement for a copyright notice to do that.

It doesn't even mention copyright. If that's a copyright notice, any
text could be. And whatever the copyright notice is, it has to have a
copyright notice for the changes in the new version *added* according
to the GFDL.

> > Author is given as author, not as publisher. Version title is not stated.
>
> Version title is stated.

Where? What's the version title?

> nothing in the licsense says how publisher
> has to be labled as such just have to mention them.

I disagree. 'Stating the publisher' means identifying him as the
publisher, not just giving the name somewhere. And I still think the
WMF is the actual publisher.

-- 
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels