Re: One document or many, missing copyrigh

On 2 Dec 2003 at 13:28, Toby Bartels wrote:

> Andre Engels wrote:
> >The ADDENDUM:
> >"To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy
> >of the
> > License in the document and put the following copyright and
> > license notices just after the title page: (...)"
> 
> But the Addendum is merely advice and (like the preamble) not
> legally binding. Am I correct?

That's my interpretation. Notice that we do not use the precise
wording it suggests on [[Wikipedia:copyrights]], replacing "this
document" with "the text of all Wikipedia materials". So I believe we
are permitted to be flexible for original works.

However, where we are modifying other people's GFDL documents, section
4F appears to require us to give permission "in the form shown in the
Addendum below". This is inconvenient for both us and modifying
redistributors, as in many contexts "this document" is ambiguous. I
suggest we interpret this provision liberally... ;-)

> >Also, 4E obliges a copyright notice (stating your copyright) if you
> >use someone else's GNU/FDL work.
> 
> This is more significant, IMO.

This would imply that articles based on Nupedia articles need to have
a copyright notice (in the multiple Document interpretation). Some
have argued that such a copyright notice could be placed in the page
history or talk page, though I am not sure I am convinced by this.

In the single Document interpretation, we could just have a big Page
O' Copyright Notices and put one for Wikipedia contributors at the
top. 

-Martin "IANAL" Harper
------- End of forwarded message -------