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