In a message dated 4/25/2009 10:20:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.>>
----------------- Presents an interesting problem doesn't it? *Who* actually has standing? I contributed 12 words to the Henry the VIII article. Is that enough to give me standing? And would any of the minor authors care?
In the long run, it my opinion, that no one is actually going to care how the content is used with or without the license, enough, to actually hire a lawyer. Of course someone could *mention* to those who take the content that they should really post a back-link and a license notation at least. I've done that in a few cases.
Will
************** Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now! (http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027)
2009/4/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/25/2009 10:20:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.>>
Presents an interesting problem doesn't it? *Who* actually has standing? I contributed 12 words to the Henry the VIII article. Is that enough to give me standing? And would any of the minor authors care?
In the long run, it my opinion, that no one is actually going to care how the content is used with or without the license, enough, to actually hire a lawyer. Of course someone could *mention* to those who take the content that they should really post a back-link and a license notation at least. I've done that in a few cases.
I think it would need someone (the WMF, a local chapter, some other interest organisation) to offer to represent the content owners.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
In the long run, it my opinion, that no one is actually going to care how the content is used with or without the license, enough, to actually hire a lawyer. Of course someone could *mention* to those who take the content that they should really post a back-link and a license notation at least. I've done that in a few cases.
I think it would need someone (the WMF, a local chapter, some other interest organisation) to offer to represent the content owners.
At one time in the past I did suggest that contributors could appoint WMF as a non-exclusive non-obligatory agent that could have standing to sue on behalf of contributors, but there was not much enthusiasm for that idea.
Ec