In a message dated 5/4/2008 12:01:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
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
confident they won't be naming any of the authors at all.
Hey we're gonna set legal precedent, woo hoo !
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.