[Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit

Wed Jul 12 07:08:17 UTC 2006

Brad Patrick wrote:

>On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On 7/4/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>
>"Having an
>employee make ad-hoc, arbitrary and speculative pronouncements on the
>law without a clear policy from the Board to back it up probably puts
>the entire project into greater peril than the obvious silliness of the
>more ignorant copyright violators."
>
>For the record, Ray, Jeff, Eric and Anthony are not employees of the
>Foundation.
>
>I am, and I hope you do not have a problem with the idea of a paid general
>counsel having as one of his primary responsibilities the generation of
>'speculative pronouncements on the law.'  That is rather the point.  My
>client, my ethical obligation, and the recipient of my professional legal
>advice is the Board.  It's my bar card on the line.  It is not my job to wax
>eloquent on the law for the sake of making people on a listserv have more to
>rant about.
>
>Thanks for including the word "probably" in the statement above, btw.  I'd
>hate to think you were taking a position without leaving yourself rhetorical
>wiggle room.  That would probably' be silly as well.
>
>  
>
For the record I am NOT an employee of the Foundation, just a schmuck 
working on Native
American translations and helping bring Wikipedia to Native Peoples.

My background is well known and I've been on the receiving end of 
litigations directed at me
by some very wealthy and powerful groups for years. My father was an 
attorney and I grew
up surrounded by lawyers. Here's the bottom line.

You win when you are NOT involved in litigating AT ALL and when people 
can work things out. Going
in front of Judge is the worst of all possible scenarios in a conflict - 
its like going to Las Vegas and playing
high rollers at the craps tables. You have no idea what will be the 
outcome since judge is a fallible human being
trying to listen to both sides and making sense of all of it and 
balancing the rights of both parties, and I've been there
-- many times, and not as an advocate but as a party where my interests 
were on line and depenent on the outcome.
There's no magic formula or elightened policy the Board or anyone can 
come up with in a vacuum that will be a
magical panacea and protect them.

Wikipedia's current policies concerning WP:RS are outstanding and 
address almost 100% of any issues people can raise.
When these polcies are followed, people have little to no recourse. The 
problem is one of enforcement of their policies,
not the system they have created. Brad has done a job that is beyond 
exemplary in keeping the Foundation level and working
out conflicts with Folks and Wales has a heart of gold that shows 
through like a beacon in the fog
when you can communicate effectively with him.

I for one am immensely impressed with Wales, Brad, Danny and what they 
have built and I will support them to the hilt (which does
not come easily for me). I understand the community issues and the 
incredible balacing act these guys have to do to make
this whole thing work, and to be honest I am nothing but totally 
impressed with the progress they've made given the types of folks
who visit their site and post troll bait and the antics of a lot of the 
folks that they work with and try to steer into a good direction.

My article was one example and Wales totally blew me away with his 
mature and thoughful handling of these people who were trolling.
I can say for certainty the Foundation has things well in hand and as 
someone who has been involved in exactly the issues you raise
in a plethura of Federal an State Court cases, they are good men, a 
judge would view them as good men, and their current policies, when
adhered to, would protect them almost 100% in these cases.

And if they want to protect their rights, as far as I can tell, they are 
protecting the rights of the community and all of you to be successful. 
Wales
seems to operate on a higher set of laws (or perhaps a more precise 
understanding of the one universal law), and his direction is sound (though
eccentric) and incredibly productive. When the issue of the website came 
up, he stated he applauded this persons courage for promoting
the pervasiveness of Wikipedia's content and said "I hope it goes back 
up", indicating he had already done his own internal balancing of
the pros and cons -- they are his Foundations trademarks and his call on 
how he wants to use them.

Enough said.

All my love to all of you,

Don't worry, be happy.

Jeff