--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Klaus Graf wrote:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's
statement in this list
("[W]e've consistently held that faithful
reproductions of
two-dimensional public domain works which are
nothing more than
reproductions should be considered public domain
for licensing
purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's
statement (which was
adressed on a Wikisource case)
See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying
issue, but if I
follow the discussion correctly it shows
absolutely no reason to think
Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything. The
statement from Mike that is
being pointed to is about a different question
entirely. What's concerning about this is that we are referring to a statement by Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were providing legal advice to the entire community would it not be more appropriate on a page addressed to a more general population. Anybody can read anybody else's talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue between any two persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private quality to personal talk pages. That someone should derive a legal position based on eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem at all the best way to go about this sort of thing.
Ec
Come on Ec! Admit that you dislike Mike's conclusion when giving reasons to not use it. ;)
More on-topic, I cannot see any discrepancy between Erik's and Mike's opinion, even though they are responses to different questions. Erik basically supports the conclusion of Bridgeman v. Corel and Mike says we must follow US law. Since Bridgeman v. Corel *is* US law, I cannot understand what the issue is.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping