Re: One document or many, missing copyright notice

 From: "Martin Harper" <martin-MAOR6hOrJ+i/zRsMOHpXgkbqmpVPkGQOWmv/[email protected]>
<..snip..>
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > We have a basic problem, which is that Wikipedia is missing a copyright
> > notice, which makes it impossible for redistributors to follow the
> > letter of the GFDL, among other things.
>
> Section 4D requires modifying redistributors to preserve any copyright
notices
> present, but if there are no copyright notices present, then my
interpretation
> would be that section 4D does not apply. I'd be interested to see how you
reach
> the conclusion that we must have a copyright notice?

This is a very good point and I agree with the logic. It is not necessary to
have
 a copyright notice. It essentially becomes an invariant section (and we do
not
accept documents with invariant sections). Note that the GFDL is itself an
invariant
section of sorts, but implied, there needs to be a local copy with any GFDL
content
even though it is not stated to be an invariant section.

If we want to make it easier for downstream users leave all the attribution
on the
page histories and consider that part of the title page, it does appear as a
link
that is prominently close to the title of each article (no reason that the
title page
cannot be considered the history page, I would find that a reasonable
interpretation.

Then even for so-called third party contributions (remember we are all third
parties
here) that are posted by someone besides the author who has the author's
permission
or themselves downstream redistributions under the GFDL a quick note in the
summary
edit box is enough to put the world on notice that the original copyright
owner is not
a Wikipedian contributor, but someone who has given permission  (either
explicitly or
derivatively through the FDL) to let the material rest on the Wikimedia
project.

Alex IAAL but this is Not A Legal Opinion (NALO)