And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them in any way; we are not even looking at the content itself, just bibliographic information.
FF
On 8/28/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Zachary Harden zscout370@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and deleted the Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go, but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having issues.
Bullocks. This is legal paranoia. Just merge the lists from different sources, clean-up duplicates, rename entries using our naming conventions, and remove articles we already have. Much of the prep work to get us to a publishable point would need to be done off-line, I'm afraid. But it *can* and should be done.
Copyright may still apply but the resulting work should be distinct enough to not be considered derivative. This is really not any different than exhausting several sources as references to write an article.
For example: I specifically choose to use references that have already encyclopedia-length treatments of the topic I want to write about. I then systematically use almost every single fact in each of those references to write an article for Wikipedia (using my own wording and organization, of course). If that is illegal, then we are in much bigger trouble than anybody thinks.
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l