wjhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:8CBEAB907C57F0C-390-280C@WEBMAIL-DZ04.sysops.aol.com...
You said:
The publisher seems to observe the copyright (even includes full edit history) so legal action seems impossible.
How can a book copy the full edit history without it being obvious that it's copied from Wikipedia? We do not require someone to say "copied from Wikipedia" on the title page by the way. But I'm unclear why you think there is no possible legal action? We have a license, and the license states that you must state certain things. Either they obey it, or they don't. Am I right?
Yup. That is why I am guessing this is a non-issue. If they did not run their editorial concept past someone at Wikimedia, then they had one of their own lawyers check it against our license. Renata St does not like their price. Neither do I, and I do not see anything I can do about it other than buy something else. She does not like the lack of prominence of wikipedia's name on the face of the books. It was not a wikimedia-spawned initiative. Forces are against printing wikipedia, and I am with them, mainly because I would not know where to start with rules for selecting articles, and I do not know anybody who does. So, she is an incidental and frequent contributor to wikipedia's unofficial print edition. Maybe she should turn that around and look at what she could do for the articles that she did not write in the books, then personally ask if they will pay her for doing it.