David Gerard wrote:
On 26/03/07, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Vee wrote:
I can't believe they've gone 'live' without even sorting out basic copyright issues... CZ is a joke.
It isn't so terribly shocking. After all, Wikipedia did the same.
Eh? I understood Wikipedia started with GFDL because Nupedia did.
Certainly it was said to be GFDL from the beginning.
But there was a good deal of discussion and disagreement during the first year or so about just what this meant, including:
- whether authors were transferring their copyright to Bomis (LMS thought so, IIRC);
- whether Bomis could change the licence to something else if it wished;
- whether Wikipedia was in fact satisfying its obligations under the GFDL (to provide transparent copies, attribution, and so forth);
- whether each page was a separate work under the GFDL;
- whether there was, or should be, an invariant section on every page containing a link back to Wikipedia.
The point is that a new, small project can in practice get away with fudging these issues for a while.
-M-