On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If they (the contributor) were, or should have been
on notice that
the material came from Wikipedia or was under a free license, there
may not be an offer/acceptance issue (Baidupedia knows or reasonably
should know that they are violating the license, and if the
contributor knows or should know it too, then the contract is not void
for lack of acceptance, though it may be void for other reasons).
We can't assume that they were or should have been on notice.
Baidupedia is, but their users aren't necessarily.
Another concern is then if the new derivative is not
under the GFDL,
does that give rise to copyright infringement? Or does the old content
divorce itself from the new content?
We've always thought in terms of "What if a static source uses our
content without attribution" but how do things change when it is a
collaborative or dynamic site that uses our content without attribution?
Right, this opens up a whole can of worms.
Pushing Baidu to fix it, from the top down and correctly, is sort of important.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com