Re: GFDL ver 1.2 4A

 From: "Tomos at Wikipedia" <[email protected]>

> I am also wondering if we should/could follow 4A of GFDL ver 1.2.
>
> When modification is made, title in Title Page should be changed so that
it
> is distinct from all the previous ones.
>
> Some of you might think that Wikipedia does not have a Title Page, and
> therefore not subject to this particular requirements. But the Title Page
is
> defined partly as follows:
>
> "For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title
Page"
> means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title,
> preceding the beginning of the body of the text." (Section 1)

> Attaching a version number would do at least a better compliance than
none.

This dovetails with my argument that I have put forth elsewhere that the
page history is really part of the title page of an "article" which is
itself a page.
Obviously a page does not exist in a wiki the same way as it exists in a
documentation manual (what the FDL was written for). Thus it can be
adapted mutatis mutandis. The title page would be the links that relate
to the "article" on the article page such as the page history.  Thus the
title
page would include the page history, as this is where all the dates of
copyright claims and the names of all copyright claimants exist. I think
anyone would agree that this information qualifies to be the
information that must be posted in the copyright notice. Just because the
word "copyright" does not appear does not mean it is not a copyright notice.
Why? Because the Berne Convention does not require such wording.
Copyright is not made by providing a notice, but by the act of fixation
under Berne principles.

Another point that supports this interpretation is that the link from an
"article" (remember this is the work under the FDL, I do not agree that
Wikipedia as a whole is only single work, an encyclopedia is first a
compendium
of articles; true there may be copyrightable elements in the structure of
Wikipedia, but this is really owned collectively and it would be very
difficult to give the copyright credits for that without listing all the
page
histories with all the contributors for things like lists, organization, and
other potentially copyrightable elements) to the "page history" is part of
the title page is that two of three of the available skins have the page
history link close to the work's title so it could be considered part of
the title page by reference.

If we consider the "page history" as part of the title page then Wikipedia
is in perfect compliance with sec. 4A of ver. 1.2 FDL as it is updated
everytime there is a modification of the "article" with which it is
associated.

Alex from Brooklyn (en:User:Alex756)