effe iets anders wrote:
I don't think that the most important issue here is the revision stuff. At least, it is not to me. What strikes me more is that any adapted version would not be released to the GFDL again. Which means that zhwikipedia can not take over that information again (with proper history of course, to give the good example).
This is a good point. Nevertheless, it could be argued that since using our material requires that anyone who uses it must put their derivative under GFDL we can use it whether they explicitly identify the licence or not. In the same way that copyrights are automatic without the need to claim or register, so too would the application of GFDL. Their GFDL rights could be terminated for breach of licence, but the termination clause still allows users of their material to keep the licence if they are compliant with it.
Having no authors on the website is something that is reversible, but not having the license mentioned is not. The issue is much more pressing imho. I think this would also give the chance to compliment Baidu in some way: we would beleive that they will improve our text!
Sorry to say this, but I think you mean "complement". They don't deserve "compliments" for their behaviour. ;-) Mixing those two up is a common error, even among native English speakers
We should feel free to use their material when it is substantially based on a Wikipedia article. We should then give due credit to Baidu in the article's history. They wouldn't dare sue us for that! (Evil :-P ) Defending a legal action is much easier than prosecuting one.
Naturally a complementary relationship would be preferable.
Ec