Do you see yourself getting involved in the ordeal? I mean, you ARE the
Wikimedia Office...r.
On 7/3/06, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the
most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only
is it
using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the
Foundation (and hence, in violation of our trademark), it is
attributing the
content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for
any copyvios
in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print
on Demand
publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided
such an
arrangement for precisely these reasons.
Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the
Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After
considerable
discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the
books
online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
*not* do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get
a
considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand
the Wikijunior
project.
This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting
unilaterally
on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications
of
what they are doing.
Danny
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l