In a message dated 5/4/2008 12:01:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
I think it does state 5, but I don't think that clause was written with wikis in mind. I have no idea how you're meant to determine the top 5 authors.>>
---------------------------- Well after having a go-round with some wikipoopians over it, it seems like you only need to name the principal authors if you alter the text in some way, and none of our mirrors actually does it anyway, and no one's ever been sued for doing it contrariwise.
I.E. a tempest in a teapot used to attack people you don't like instead of actually fulfilling our mission.
Which is, in my mind, to provide a free encyclopedia, free for anyone to do anything they want with, and they probably will and do, flauntly any interpretation of the license whatsoever. It will be interesting to see how these "let's sell pages x1 through x10 of wikipedia to audience y" go. I'm fairly confident they won't be naming any of the authors at all.
Hey we're gonna set legal precedent, woo hoo !
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)