Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Responses: on DMY as a standard UK/international format |
→Responses: you can't have it both ways |
||
Line 823:
:::::::You didn't have to quote chapter and verse, I am capable of looking up a reference. Anyway, I really think this is a dead end to this particular discussion. Nothing says the republishing agent has to be a natural person, the Wikipedia page rendering engine could just thwack a copyright notice at the bottom of the page saying "go see the original text"-- in fact, since the rendered version is ipso facto different from the edited text (assuming even the most minimal markup) I could argue it already should-- if it reduces a picture to a thumbnail, for example. These clauses are intended to stop people not crediting Wikipedia and its contributors a whole, not to stop minor changes for rendering purposes. I have started doing some translation and have to credit the original under GFDL, but that doesn't mean I can't change the article, in fact it's encouraged where appropriate The aim of the GFDL is to protect the Commons and Wikipedia etc and to ensure fair use etc. It does not mean, however you would like it to mean, that pages cannot be rendered in a different way by different engines, be they the server or client, or my own blurry eyes when I remove my glasses. I am not going to quote all kinds of references here but the whole Look and Feel argument of the early 80's (Lotus 1-2-3 vs Borlland Quattro) established that, in law in the US, but in practice everywhere. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: A school of red herrings (my favourite is “the discussion is now over, and here's 200 words explaining why...”).
:::::::: Yes, editing is encouraged, but only allowed under the GFDL. I'm not claiming copyright over my “look and feel,” but over the words I've written. What do your blurry eyes have to do with rewriting some of these words without respecting the explicit terms of the licence? Nothing.
:::::::: The GFDL ''does'' say that whoever the republishing agent is, individual or corporation, they have to take credit for their modification. And you're quite right, thwacking a copyright notice, along with the required change of title and the acceptance of credit could well be enough – but the foundation doesn't. The copyright notice linked from every article says explicitly that the copyright is owned by the editors, and not by the foundation. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-13 20:25 z</small>''
;To answer Martindelaware's question (support 189):
| |||