GFDL violation - Revision history

142.177.77.91 at 02:30, 5 July 2005

2005-07-05T02:30:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, 5 July 2005
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Other types of GFDL violations include:		Other types of GFDL violations include:
	*failing to credit the top five contributors when a document is exported via XML - ''this is quite ~~diificult~~ to do without a [[~~wiki~~ identity standard]]''		*failing to credit the top five contributors when a document is exported via XML - ''this is quite difficult to do without an [[interwiki identity standard]]''
	*failing to permit retrieval of any page's source text, even to [[trolls]]		*failing to permit retrieval of any page's source text, even to [[trolls]]
	*failing to respect the status of [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s or respect the obligations implied by the latter		*failing to respect the status of [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s or respect the obligations implied by the latter

			[[Wikipedia]] has complicated matters with its policy of forcing other [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s to provide links to itself if any text is similar to any other GFDL text that has been published via [[Wikipedia]] (which legally and technically is only a user interface). While it is the largest and best known source, it is deliberately NOT the authoratitive or most quotable source for any particular topic. Accordingly it is seriously detrimental to the [[GFDL corpus]] to have all links on all topics lead to Wikipedia. The license implies that the best and most authoritative version be linked to, not just the first place where the material appeared.

	[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations].		[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations].

142.177.77.91 at 02:26, 5 July 2005

2005-07-05T02:26:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 5 July 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A [[GFDL]] vilation is a violation of the [[GNU]] Free Documentation License.		A [[GFDL]] vilation is a violation of the [[GNU]] Free Documentation License.

	Many '''[[GFDL]]''' violations occur when ~~other~~ [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s fail to provide links to source materials~~, although the~~ licence requires users to "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document" ~~when~~ they republish [[GFDL]] text that has been published by other providers, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia], the largest and best known source of [[GFDL]] content on the net.		Many '''[[GFDL]]''' violations occur when [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s fail to provide links to source materials. The licence requires users to "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document" if it is in fact given in the document, not in associated text added by a service.

			When they republish [[GFDL]] text that has been published by other providers, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia], the largest and best known source of [[GFDL]] content on the net, some providers omit the link to the location where it can be edited, corrected or otherwise fixed.

			Other types of GFDL violations include:
			*failing to credit the top five contributors when a document is exported via XML - ''this is quite diificult to do without a [[wiki identity standard]]''
			*failing to permit retrieval of any page's source text, even to [[trolls]]
			*failing to respect the status of [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s or respect the obligations implied by the latter

	[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations].		[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations].

66.177.218.235: Edited to clarify, and more accurately reflect the linked source materials.

2005-07-02T21:43:41Z

Edited to clarify, and more accurately reflect the linked source materials.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 2 July 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''~~[[GFDL]] violation~~'''s occur frequently especially at [[Wikipedia]] which has a policy~~ of ~~forcing other [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s to provide links to itself if any text is similar to any other GFDL text that has been published via~~ [[~~Wikipedia~~]] ~~(which legally and technically is only a user interface)~~.		A [[GFDL]] vilation is a violation of the [[GNU]] Free Documentation License.

	[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations]~~. It seems inevitable that [[Wikimedia]] will be reported for such violations~~.		Many '''[[GFDL]]''' violations occur when other [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s fail to provide links to source materials, although the licence requires users to "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document" when they republish [[GFDL]] text that has been published by other providers, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia], the largest and best known source of [[GFDL]] content on the net.

			[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations].

142.177.93.54 at 19:54, 26 June 2004

2004-06-26T19:54:46Z

New page

'''[[GFDL]] violation'''s occur frequently especially at [[Wikipedia]] which has a policy of forcing other [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s to provide links to itself if any text is similar to any other GFDL text that has been published via [[Wikipedia]] (which legally and technically is only a user interface).

[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations]. It seems inevitable that [[Wikimedia]] will be reported for such violations.