On 11/16/05, Kelly Martin
<kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/16/05, Brandon Cordy
<b.touch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I kept talking to the Billboard rep,
and he says he's willing to
work out a cashless deal if we can send them traffic (which, as far as I
know, we already do through the external links). We may not have to delete
anything at all.
Such a license would be unacceptable to Wikipedia.
What if it were simply an agreement that Billboard would not sue so
long as they were cited as a source? That isn't a content licence,
just an agreement to cite sources.
Which we do anyway.
This seems like more of Billboard's way of saving face than what could
be considered a licence agreement.
Naturally, as normal, IANAL. Thank goodness.
We don't need any agreement. We just need to use the content in ways
that are not violating copyright. If we say "this song reached X on
the Billboard Hot 100 chart [link]" then there's no way that their
copyright is being infringed.
What we can't do is have large segments of a chart. Unless Billboard
is willing to release large segments under the GFDL, then we can't use
it, and there's no point making any agreement.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com