On 9 Jul 2002, at 23:07, Jan.Hidders wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:56:16PM -0700, Daniel Mayer
wrote:
We should consider doing some strategizing to make
sure another fork doesnt happen (I hear members of
the French wikipedia threatened a fork in the past).
Is that really such a big problem? I know it wastes effort but we can
still copy articles from them and vice versa, right?
If the arguement is on a superficial issue, i.e. banner adverts, there
is no reason why the backends (i.e the articles) of both projects
can't essentially be mirrors of one another.
But does our
license then force them to put a link on every article that they have
copied from the original site?
No, what the licence does say is that,
1) They can't use the name Wikipedia without permission, i.e. they
have to rename.
2) They can't remove the name of the authors of articles, in the
case of anonymous articles, this might mean they have to attribute
Wikipedia.
3) For at least the next four years they will need to acknowledge
wikipedia.com as the source, but this can be done on a "History"
page and need not be on every article.
IANAL. But I'm familiar with copyleft licences and their application
to non-software content.
Imran
--
TheOpenCD Project
Promoting Open Source on Windows
http://www.theopencd.org