Re: RE: [Wikipedia-l] since we are on legal matters ...

On 11/26/03 4:46 PM, "Alex R." <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: "The Cunctator" <[email protected]>
> <...snip...>
>> No, you do not remember correctly. The GFDL requires derivative works to
>> give at least the 5 major contributors, unless the creators of the
>> original work release that obligation.
>> 
>> The GFDL makes no requirements on authorship attribution to the original
>> work.
> 
> Wikipedia automatically attributes original works. I can't imagine it being
> otherwise
> because then no one could make GFDL compliant derivative works. How would
> one determine who the five major contributors were?

I can imagine it otherwise. Your inability to imagine it so does not make it
so.


> Also since WP is a collective work anyone who posts without their being
> authorship information of the prior posters to a page would be violating the
> GFDL, because in essence each new edit is a derivative work of the prior
> works.

That WP is a collaborative effort does not mean that there is any
correspondence to Clauses 5 or 6 of the GFDL. Wach new edit is not a
derivative work. That is simply wrong.

<snip>
> 
>> It would behoove us (and potential authors of derivative works) if we
>> did explicitly state that we release people from the 5-author
>> obligation.
> 
> I don't think you can do that without modifying the GFDL. Anyway I don't see
> how that is a problem just put the author attribution in the summary field
> or
> if it is an original contribution it is either identified by the the user
> name (usually
> a pseudonym, but that is allowed under copyright law) or by the IP number
> (another form of pseudonym). Otherwise, once again, you need to get
> a retroactive grant not something even a revised version of the GFDL will do
> as it is only a non-exclusive license and the old common law property adage
> is
> applicable, you can't grant more of a right to property than you have thus
> the
> Free Software Foundation cannot retroactively grant all copyright ownership
> to Wikipedia, it would require the consent of each and every contributor.
> With
> the page histories (which are readily available to anyone who know how to
> find
> the current version of a page) one has the full history of the article,
> including
> author attribution and the type and extent of that contribution (once again
> this
> is a good reason to adapt some kind of analysis along the lines of the work
> done at that MIT lab project).

That's one interpretation (and you're also confusing the issue--see below).
It's certainly not the only one. For example: I consider the Document to be
Wikipedia, not the individual entry.

It would be easy to determine the 5 principal authors of Wikipedia, to get
them to release any authorship credit requirements, and then to explicitly
state that for any future contributions authors release the authorship
credit requirement per Section 4B.

Note that this is an ENTIRELY distinct issue from granting copyright
ownership, which you are conflating.

I am not proposing any form of granting copyright ownership to Wikipedia.
Don't believe that I am.