[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

Sat Jul 15 16:13:19 UTC 2006

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Robert Scott Horning said:
>>>>>The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold
>>>>>copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free
>>>>>Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects:  If there is a
>>>>>copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the
>>>>>copyright and defending the GPL.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a
>>>>non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend
>>>>editors' copyrights.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Optionally, I hope.  I personally have no desire to sue people over
>>>the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law.  Basically,
>>>as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free
>>>derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as
>>>copyright law is concerned.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think that that view is shared by most of us who have a philosophical
>>attachment to the concept of free information.
>>    
>>
>I dunno.  I've seen an awful lot of lawsuit-happy Wikipedians.  I've
>even been legally threatened by a number of them for running a mirror
>site.
>
Hmmm!  Maybe things are worse than I imagined.  I've gradually come to 
the conclusion that the more mirrors and forks we have, the better.  
I've even considered that having more fair use material may in fact help 
free use.

As for you "lawsuit-happy Wikipedians", they often fail to see the big 
step between threatening a lawsuit and starting one.  My only answer to 
them would be, "So do it!"

>>>Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use
>>>lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
>>>      
>>>
>>I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the
>>option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation,
>>and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ...
>>sometimes.  The alternative would only create more confusion when the
>>WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up.  On the other hand, it would
>>be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of
>>perceived copyvio.
>>    
>>
>What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to
>enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute
>anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again.  (I suppose
>I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the
>public domain).
>
If it's in the public domain, there's no copyvio, and no rights to give.

>I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the
>circumstances of the situation.  I obviously can't stop others from
>giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own
>content.
>
Circumstances to me mostly have to do with the severity of the copyvio, 
or whether a particular case is practical or worth it.

It may be enough for one editor on a page to give them the right to sue.

Ec