> I have
always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly
> appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
>
On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter
is that the WMF is *not*
a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of
the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of
Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the
GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
This was brought up a few years ago and I was in the group who opposed
giving the WMF enforcement power over violations of our copyright(s).
While I may technically release my writing under the GFDL I am
actually *much* more lenient on what rights I care to enforce.
Even if it weren't too late, it'd still be a bad idea.
Why do you think
it's such a bad idea? I don't expect that the WMF
would go mad starting lawsuits all over the place. Most likely it could
happen when there has been a serious corruption of the underlying
copyleft principles by some person in the distant future. It's a matter
of looking ahead. Individuals just do not have the clout to deal with
serious breaches of copyright, and when their efforts are masked by a
long series of subsequent edits the abusers can get around that by
challenging the individual's right to litigate. An infringement suit
still needs to be preceded by a registration of one's claims. How do
you propose that such a registration be formulated? Can one individual
act on behalf of all the other individuals in making such a
registration. I think the WMF would do better periodically sending in a
data dump of the entire site for copyright registration.
Ec