Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform
for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the
better place... that would be a problem.
This is what IB appear to be alleging.
All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile
in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to
support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
Tom
On 12 September 2012 12:09, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To tackle both these at once:
*@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: *
1. WT's "mission" is stated clearly, "*Wikitravel is a project to
create
a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide".* I
don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not
endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to
pursue
that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior.
2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a "built in collaboration by
Wikitravellers from around the globe", not a site "built in
collaboration
with IB". The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members
of
the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not
consider
IB to have a heightened right to declare itself "the community" or
"the
party obtaining mandatory agreement" in that collaboration. The initial
legal agreement (I gather) says as much. There is no evidence that
WT'ers
were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states.
Rather,
WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could
obtain better, which is completely separate.
3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing
WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU
you
cite. When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they
did as
it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And
used
their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their
choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and
individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is
forced
to leave, or impeded in freewill.
*@Nemo:*
In fact AFAIK, this is legal
too<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_billboard>rd>.
1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food,
garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a
competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim
community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other
vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the
types
complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of
local
community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel
like
switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and
legal,
and happens every day.
2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was
involved.
FT2
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)wikimedia.hk
wrote:
One possibility lies within their terms of use:
"If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals
but
refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach
consensus<http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensus>or make
concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this
Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we
reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal
--
to prevent you from disrupting our work
together."
The goals page (
http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals)
does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a
travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the
fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on
Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that
they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which
is
a form of breach of contract.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemowiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members
of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone
with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people
and
regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub
Xb"
across the street instead. Or that a clerk of
"Y bookshop" used the list
of
all its customers and its official letter papers
to mail them saying to
send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop".
Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l