My reply to this obvious legal issue question posted on the legal list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-December/000109.html
to join that list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The Defendent
"...the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the
GNU
Free Documentation License (GFDL)"
This statement gives us standing as licensor, the defendent is a licensee
under the GFDL.
Fred
> From: Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:29:54 -0800
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The Defendent
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> I think Flexicon is the logical defendent with Wikipedia as a the
plaintiff
>> should we chose to not accept repeated
violations of our copyright, if
>> contact with them requesting compliance proves unproductive. Ulrich
Fuchs
is
>> right to point this out but throwing in the
"five author" question is
not
>> productive as we do want people, including
commercial sites, to reuse
our
material without onerous requirements.
I'm not sure how Wikipedia could be the plaintiff, as it doesn't hold
copyright to the material. The material I've submitted to Wikipedia,
for example, is copyrighted by me. I have licensed it under the GFDL,
so Wikipedia, as well as anyone else willing to abide by the terms of
the GFDL, is free to use my text. But they have no more rights to it
than any other random person or entity does.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l