Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 12:43:24PM +0100, the wub wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
I wonder whether, at least in some jurisdictions, if it came to a court case, the court might rule that as our use of open source licenses is so complex and so confusing, and that the editors have no idea really in most cases what they are doing, that in reality we are releasing material into the public domain and that we in general as WP or an editor in particular can not claim any copyright on anything in WP.
This is only one of numerous possibilities.
I think I understand them, but I have been involved with open source code for many years. I am, however, not at all confident, that we could win, at least some cases, if they actually came to a court.
One can never be confident about such things. So far, there is not much in the way of court judgements to clarify anything to do with free licences.
I believe the only case that has come to court is one relating to the German Wikipedia.
That one was not about copyright, but about privacy..
Of course in some cases it would be the person sueing that lost for the reasons I state. I think it very unlikely indeed for example that the copyright issues on the Bad Joke and other nonsenese stuff would ever course us any problem.
Agreed. The hoops that the plaintiff would need to jump through to be successful are just too complex when there are no established standards. For short pieces of material of questionable value it's just not worth their while.
Ec
Ec