![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/6435c3e8843adf6ba683f32a7aea0e0e.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Richard, care to refer me to the legally binding sentences on which you base your interpretation that each page qualifies as an individual Document as per the license's concept of a Document? Le 08/08/2021 à 14:05, Richard Brown a écrit :
On 8. Aug 2021, at 14:00, Carlos E. R.
wrote: On 08/08/2021 13.50, Adrien Glauser wrote:
Sorry Carlos E. R., I am afraid we have different takes on licenses.
My understanding is based on these sentences:
- https://github.com/openSUSE/openSUSE-docs-revamped-temp/blob/fc965b9e94fdd08...
- https://github.com/openSUSE/openSUSE-docs-revamped-temp/blob/fc965b9e94fdd08...
So, to be sure, the word "the Document" in this context refers to the entire body of contents to which the license applies. It does not at all refer to "pages" (which are just a human-friendly way of rendering database fields and bear no relevance in this context).
This is not acceptable.
I agree. Carlos’ understanding of the licensing of the wiki content is accurate and correct.
Each wiki page is a separate document covered under the GFDL
Each wiki page as its own list of authors, as required by the GFDL. This list of authors is complete, and not just the 5 principle authors which is a minimum under the GFDL, not a threshold for protection under the GFDL.
Each wiki page has its own history, as required by the GFDL
If the revamped docs team intends to migrate/aggregate all those separate GFDL works it needs to consider the authors of all of the pages, not just 5 random wiki contributors of their choice.
-- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from oS Leap 15.2 x86_64 (Minas Tirith))