On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I'd certainly ask for advice from counsel on this, but I would want to know: "given that Baidupedia is starting with GFDL content, does the fact that they obscure that their content is licensed under the GFDL prevent all subsequent derivative edits from also being unknowingly licensed under the GFDL?"
Essentially, if you are making a derivative work of a viral/share- alike/GFDL style content, but you do not know what the status of the original was (and did not agree to license your content under the GFDL), what is the copyright status of the newly created derivative work?
We'd need to know the answer to that question before doing a "reverse Baidupedia". If the answer is "It's under the GFDL" then we're ok to proceed (ignoring for a second the moral issues). If the answer is something other than that, we may not be able to do it.
In contract terms, this seems like a classic failure of meeting of the minds - if the secondary contributor is unaware of the original license on the material, then they cannot have agreed to the license, and likely cannot be held to it.