On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Alex R. wrote:
"All contributions submitted here are released under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]], see [[{Project name}:Copyrights and Warranty Disclaimers]] . By clicking save you affirm the copyright owner(s) of all submitted material agrees to these terms; you further affirm that such text is not defamatory or in violation of any law; you also agree to [[{project name}:indemnify|indemnify]] {project name}, all other volunteers and the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] for any and all claims connected with your submission and are bound by the [[{project name): terms and conditions]]."
That looks good to me. Any objections from anybody about me changing the edit page text in Language.php, moving/modifying [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], creating [[Wikipedia:Terms and conditions]], and for Alex to start [[Wikipedia:Indemnify]]?
And what do we do if a minor makes a submission? After all, while minors can sign contracts, but cannot be held to them. And we do have several minors who are making contributions to Wikipedia. (For example LittleDan, who I wouldn't have thought was that young had he not stated the fact.)
This has been something that has nagged me ever since I learned that the FSF does check for this of every contributor to their code base. If someone under 18 wants to contribute, they have to get their parents or guardians to agree to the FSF's terms. (This is done to provide the necessary documentation to prevent a SCO v. IBM lawsuit.)
Geoff
--- Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
And what do we do if a minor makes a submission? After all, while minors can sign contracts, but cannot be held to them. And we do have several minors who are making contributions to Wikipedia. (For example LittleDan, who I wouldn't have thought was that young had he not stated the fact.)
This has been something that has nagged me ever since I learned that the FSF does check for this of every contributor to their code base. If someone under 18 wants to contribute, they have to get their parents or guardians to agree to the FSF's terms. (This is done to provide the necessary documentation to prevent a SCO v. IBM lawsuit.)
Geoff
Even if that's technically true, do you think someone would go to court to get permission to use a minor's contributions to wikipedia (and remember, only the changes, not the full article) without the GNU FDL license? Or do you mean that the child will change his mind and say that he doesn't give permission to use it under the FDL? I really am not worried about it. Not to mention that if a child is anonymous, as many wikipedians are as far as age, how can they prove that he can't be held to the contract?
And are you implying that, if I press "I agree" on a click-through license on software, then I don't have to follow it?
Keep in mind that, up to this SCO v. IBM lawsuit (a rare exception), no GNU license has ever been brought to court. And when it comes to the FDL, I think it is even less likely to be challenged since the competition for literature is not as fierce as in software. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
And are you implying that, if I press "I agree" on a click-through license on software, then I don't have to follow it?
The license is binding on children. If it wasn't then children could not buy video games, videotapes, books, etc. no one would sell it to them. Children enter into contracts all the time.
Keep in mind that, up to this SCO v. IBM lawsuit (a rare exception), no GNU license has ever been brought to court. And when it comes to the FDL, I think it is even less likely to be challenged since the competition for literature is not as fierce as in software.
Children also go to court to testify; of course a child might be so young that he or she does not understand what the truth means, but then there are many adults who don't understand what copyright licenses mean or what taking an oath in court means.
We can certainly add text about minors to the Terms and Conditions (maybe it should be called Submission Standards, terms and conditions sounds too much like contract boilerplate that no one may ever read). But getting permission from their parents?
What about marital property? Should a wife get her husband's approval because he might later say that she is wasting valuable marital property by releasing it under the GFDL?
Alex756
Alex R. wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
And are you implying that, if I press "I agree" on a click-through license on software, then I don't have to follow it?
The license is binding on children. If it wasn't then children could not buy video games, videotapes, books, etc. no one would sell it to them. Children enter into contracts all the time.
That depends on where they are. In BC law a child can only be held liable in a contract for necessities. (Wkipediholics might have a hard time convincing the courts that Wikipedia is a necessity. :-) ) Those who sell video games, etc.to children do so at their own risk The most likely kind of dispute is for not having paid for the game, and these end up too bad for the vendor. If vendors had to rely on some kind of assurance that the child could properly agree to the licensing agreement the entire video game market would collapse. Concerned parents would be loath to agree to these as a way of keeping the kids away from games. If these children do not develop a video game "addiction" during childhood, they are much less likely to be customers when they grow up.
We can certainly add text about minors to the Terms and Conditions (maybe it should be called Submission Standards, terms and conditions sounds too much like contract boilerplate that no one may ever read). But getting permission from their parents?
Oh, no! More wrds! :-)
What about marital property? Should a wife get her husband's approval because he might later say that she is wasting valuable marital property by releasing it under the GFDL?
The nimber of possible variations is endless.
Ec
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Alex R. wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
And are you implying that, if I press "I agree" on a click-through license on software, then I don't have to follow it?
The license is binding on children. If it wasn't then children could not buy video games, videotapes, books, etc. no one would sell it to them. Children enter into contracts all the time.
That depends on where they are. In BC law a child can only be held liable in a contract for necessities. (Wkipediholics might have a hard time convincing the courts that Wikipedia is a necessity. :-) )
We are talking about copyright here, contract law does not apply, copyright law in the US is a federal law and supercedes state contract law. Anyone who can own property can own a copyright. Children can own property, it is not a consensual thing, of course selling or transfering the property may be another issue, but they cannot get any more title to copyright than they have in a license, so when a minor receives copyrighted material they are not only limted by contract, but also by the principals of property law.
Those who sell video games, etc.to children do so at their own risk The most likely kind of dispute is for not having paid for the game, and these end up too bad for the vendor.
Don't know any vendors who sell video games on credit to minors, do you? If the minor has a credit card the bank gets it guaranteed by the adult; essentially the adult is backing up the purchases by the minor and must pay for them (this is a form of consent). When you are in retail you have them pay cash, especially when they are little kids. The parents may then take them to court, but more than likely most vendors will allow the parent (within a reasonable time) to return the game as this is goodwill for the vendor (also another reason to put video games in proprietary no copiable formats so the kids don't buy them, get their parents to void the sale after they have copied them). "Hey mom, look I purchased this CD without your permission, maybe you should go and get the purchase voided." Yes, son, but have you copied it yet? I want to listen to that album too."
Most parents will not give the child money for purchases, or the child will not tell the parent where they bought the game. If it is a cash sale, how do you even find the retailer? There is no privity of contract with the software developer. Even without the contract there is alway the quantum merit or unjust enrichment restitution argument. I would be interested in seeing a statistical study of retailers being taken to small claims courts for selling to minors; bet it is very rare case indeed.
If vendors had to rely on some kind of assurance that the child could properly agree to the licensing agreement the entire video game market would collapse. Concerned parents would be loath to agree to these as a way of keeping the kids away from games. If these children do not develop a video game "addiction" during childhood, they are much less likely to be customers when they grow up.
I guess you are saying that they give the games to kids even without the binding legal contract, because it is good business practice.
But if they have been paid and the parents don't object after a period of time that parents cannot sit on their hands (laches) and then go to court and try to get the sale overturned. After the sale is ratified, explicitly or implicitly by the parent, it will likely be very hard to get a judge to void the confirmed contract. Are most parents going to be so diligent as to run to court after every small purchase by the minor child?
I think this is becoming a very academic discussion about minors and their contract rights, maybe someone should add it to the page about contract and the variations on voidable contracts, restitution and mis- representations that effect contracting with minors.
We can certainly add text about minors to the Terms and Conditions (maybe it should be called Submission Standards, terms and conditions sounds too much like contract boilerplate that no one may ever read). But getting permission from their parents?
Oh, no! More wrds! :-)
Ain't words wha' Wikipedia awl 'bout?
What about marital property? Should a wife get her husband's approval because he might later say that she is wasting valuable marital property by releasing it under the GFDL?
The nimber of possible variations is endless.
Do you want me to start listing them? For the edification of other list members? (just kidding)
Alex756
Geoff Burling wrote:
And what do we do if a minor makes a submission? After all, while minors can sign contracts, but cannot be held to them. And we do have several minors who are making contributions to Wikipedia. (For example LittleDan, who I wouldn't have thought was that young had he not stated the fact.)
This has been something that has nagged me ever since I learned that the FSF does check for this of every contributor to their code base. If someone under 18 wants to contribute, they have to get their parents or guardians to agree to the FSF's terms. (This is done to provide the necessary documentation to prevent a SCO v. IBM lawsuit.)
Somehow putting all these bureaucratic hoops in front of people seems very unwiki. This sounds very much like seeking solutions for low probability hypothetical problems.
If we are to judge Wikipedians at all it should be based on what they to on these sites. Age alone should never be a factor.
Ec