Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Zennie

AnonEMouse
This is in response to AnonEMouse's comments. AnonEMouse is saying that simply by submitting the text, Zennie has licensed it under the GFDL. That's great, that's my assumption as well. However, please note that Zennie has made it absolutely clear in email to me that he refuses to license the text under the terms of the GFDL. I have pointed out to him that WP:OWN states that he is licensing it thus, and that the edit page itself notes this as well. He claims to wholeheartedly reject this. I agree this is silly. I'm quite happy to work on the assumption that Zennie's actions, by submitting the text, are an explicit agreement of this license. In fact, I believe this is exactly how Wikipedia works. However, once again, Zennie denies this. My understanding, though I do not want to put words in AnonEMouse's mouth, is that we should just ignore Zennie's rejection because Zennie, even though he denies it in comments and in email, is in fact licensing his contributions under the GFDL. --Yamla 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This reads like there's some hair splitting going on here. What's the goal? To get Zennie to admit to GFDL ... in order to do what? In order to allow him to put his company's biographical blurb on his own user page? He should be able to do that. In order to use that blurb in one or more Wikipedia articles wholesale? We shouldn't do that, it's too advertising-like. In order to be able to use it as a reference? We can do that regardless of licence. In order to use individual bits and pieces of it in articles? We can do that already, one can't copyright either facts or the English language. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The goal is to get a comment that simply by uploading text, users are agreeing to the GFDL. Thus, that any text Zennie contributes is licensed under the GFDL even though he claims this is not the case.  This would necessarily resolve the copyvio and the dispute I currently have with him.  The dispute is simply that Zennie claims his contributions are not licensed under the GFDL, I claim his contributions are.  On the other hand, if Zennie is right, we cannot accept his blurb on his user page because he has not granted Wikipedia any such license.  To be clear, I agree that we can use that blurb as a reference, even if Zennie does not license it under the GFDL.  --Yamla 14:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)