Re: (Fwd) Re: GFDL ver 1.2 4A

From: "Martin Harper" <martin-MAOR6hOrJ+i/zRsMOHpXgkbqmpVPkGQOWmv/[email protected]>
>
> 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.

Another point that makes a wiki collaborative venture different
than any other "documentation" is that anyone can edit an "article"
of the wiki (i.e. a page). Each page has a "name" or, as it is suggested
here a "title". Anyone who adds to the page has been given permission
to use the title on the page, therefore, anyone who posts anything
on a wiki (remember the edited mercilessly bit) has to give permission
to allow others (and that includes anyone who can get access to
a browser that will log onto the Wikimedia servers) to use that title.
Otherwise everyone who edits a page would have to change the
name of the page. Note that I am assuming that the "title" of a page
is the "name" of that page, i.e. the wikilink that brings us there.
I know that is not the only possible interpretation, but it seems
reasonable to me. Anyone who can post anything on a wiki can
also publish it at another place, therefore permission has been
given to anyone to use the title of a page on a wikipedia.

<..snip..>

> 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.

Well, I think that if you follow my logic, if someone has given permission
to post something on Wikipedia, they have also given permission to
have the page that their material is on moved to another page location.
(no one asks contributors if a page can be moved, now do they?).
So they give permission for the name to be changed. Since anyone
can change the name to whatever, the grant of permission to post
material on Wikipedia includes the grant to name it anyway Wikipedia
editors decide, thus this permission is also the permission to allow
the imported text to reside on any page at all, or even to have some
of the material on one page and another part of the material on
another page (since WP does not accept invariant sections).

<..snip..>


> 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.

You can copyright a short text if it is very distinctive, but dillution and
passing off protection? I am not sure that was the intent of the drafters
of the GFDL. Some copyright commentators would take exception to
this provision because the name is just a way to describe an encyclopedia
article, it is not the same as the name of a book or some other
documentation.

Again, ff someone grants the GFDL license for importing text they have to
understand that there are no guarantees that anything submitted will
remains in the form in which they submitted it, again this is different
from the idea of the FDL as a "documentation" license which fails to
take into account the unique collaboration in a public wiki project.
Really you guys do not seem to recognize that we are much closer
to the public domain than you realize, really the more I think about it
the GFDL is just the way to give authors moral rights (and also
publicity to the FSF) to collaborative authors in a non-moral rights
country (even though the US did sign the Berne Convention somehow
it does not apply to text, only certain works of art, maybe we
should get rid of the GFDL and declare Wikipedia a work of art and
get everyone to recognize the moral rights of contributors).  If they
reuse the work, isn't this really the spirit of the GFDL?

Alex from Brooklyn (not to be confused with other Alexs)