I was answering Tim Starling who said :
"I'm not convinced the Foundation should want people to assign
copyright to it though. Isn't it a lot
safer if we don't have ownership of any of the content?"
And I do agree that it is definitely safer, avoiding us to be sued
for copyvio.
I would also like to remember that many legislations forbid copyright
assignment outside of very protective formal rules and that it would
be extremely difficult to implement such a solution.
Le 24 juil. 05 à 22:28, Alexandre Dulaunoy a écrit :
On 22/Jul/05 12:21 +0200, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
wrote:
It's definitely safer and much more clear !
What is "definitely safer and much more clear" ? with or without
copyright assignment to the wikimedia foundation ?
The solution for the GNU Project is quite nice as there is a kind of
"protective clause" in the case of "going crazy".
--
-- Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) --
http://www.foo.be/
--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
-- "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
-- that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l