On 04/25/11 3:30 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
But If I licensed the work under a free license They
only can make the
derivative work under the condition of releasing it under the same license.
If they fail to do it they must talk to me and ask for a new license. Then
I have the right to ask for a fair share of their profits.
And it seems very reasonable that the share of the profits I ask must be
higher than the cost of the activities I can't do because of they releasing
the derivative work under a more restrictive license. If I copy back their
derivative work and distribute it under a free license there is a loss of
profits that can be measured by their fall of income. But they still may
have some profits coming partially from their additional right and partially
So I see the things this way
Situation a) They use my work, do a derivative work and release it under
free license: I copy their derivative work back to wikipedia and their
ability to make profits is highly limited because of the existence of the
copy in wikipedia and because of the free license they are releasing the
Situation b) They use my work, do a derivative work and release it under a
privative license. The free license doesn't apply because they don't
accomplish with the conditions of the license. I can sue them and ask for a
fair share of their incomes. No mater the original license because they are
not using it. Here the problem is in supporting the cost of the legal
process and being heard in a Chinese court.
Situation c) They use my work, do a derivative work, release it under a
privative license and I copy their work and distribute it under a free
license. In this case They can claim for the loses of profits but they also
have to compensate me for the fair share of their income I have the right to
receive. I think is is not difficult to sustain that the second is higher
than the first. And I also have the advantage that the case has to be heard
in my country and if I don't have income or I am a none for profit entity
accomplishing certain rules I have the right to free justice.
I think situation is more difficult if I am not the author of the original
work but only a distributor or a licensee. But if we could find a way to
force any derivative work to enter under free license no mater what the
author of the derivative work says then this would be the best protection
for the free knowledge. If necessary changing again the license and
explicitly saying: By using Wikipedia you are accepting that any copy or
distribution or derivative work you may do will be also a free work. If you
don't agree with this don't use Wikipedia and don't do any derivative work
A Spanish judge having to decide on the fine legal points involving a
translation from English to Chinese would have his head spinning by now.
It could get worse if a new translation from Chinese to Spanish were
done by a Mexican.
Assuming that your analysis is perfectly correct what then? Informal
opinions from lawyers are still nothing more than opinions. Even a fully
researched legal opinion won't help much; that kind of legal research
may be too subtle for the average Wikipedian's simplistic conception of
law. The court's opinion is the only one that matters, and even then
only in that court's country.
Who is going to test the law? Who is going to bear the expense of taking
all this to court when the damages are so very small? What is the