(Fwd) Re: GFDL ver 1.2 4A

On 3 Dec 2003 at 9:14, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:

> I am also wondering if we should/could follow 4A of GFDL ver 1.2.

In short, we don't have to.

Firstly, the publisher of an article can waive the requirement to
change titles. I believe that Wikimedia/Bomis, as the publisher, has
implicitly given that permission to Wikipedia contributors. It's
allowed to do this under section 4A: "You may use the same title as 
a
previous version if the original publisher of that version gives
permission". So we don't have to change the title for every edit to a
page.

Importing/exporting is a little trickier. One argument is that the
actual Title of each article is "blah, from Wikipedia" (etc), which
means that imported/exported text is under a different title.
Alternatively, you could also argue that Wikimedia/Bomis implicitly
waives the section 4A requirement for exported text. Modifying
redistributors can always Title articles as "AnotherWiki: Bacterium",
worst case. (some already do). Verbatim copiers can ignore section 
4A
anyway.

When importing text following the boilerplate request for permission,
you should tell the publisher the URL and Title of the article you
want to create, so if it's the same title as theirs, they grant
permission to use that title when they grant the GFDL. For other
imported text, look at it on a case-by-base basis - hard to make
generalised comments.

You could also try to argue that naming an article on bacteria
"bacterium" is not a creative work in itself, so it's not protected by
copyright. The intent of GFDL 4A is to protect works with distinctive
names from trademark dilution. Finally, you could go with Alex's
interpretation of a "Title Page" including/being the page history, or
The Cunctator's interpetation of Wikipedia as a single Document.

So, lots of options here, so barring anyone coming up to us and 
saying
we're infringing on their section 4A rights, I doubt we need worry.
-Martin "IANAL" Harper


------- End of forwarded message -------