It also should be noted we shouldn't have to inundate common people with
complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied
finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his
eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to live
like common people; he wanted to live and drink with common people. So he
decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people because
he just liked it that much.
All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple terms
like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL general and specialized knowledge
provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what
Wikipedia is all about.
On 7/16/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and
there
is no
>>>>rental, lease, or lending. But
then again, by that definition
>>>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>>>court would agree with that...."
>>>>
>>>>Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every
person
>>>>that receives it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get
>>>transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets
>>>transferred? Bits?
>>>
>>>
>>I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of
ownership.
>>
>>
>It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does).
>And may qualify
>as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT.
>People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the
licence. If
you grant
someone unlimited
RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some
period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be
transferred on the back of a bubble gum
wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give
someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the
content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say
something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did
not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of
a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY".
I think you can see the logic. If folks
want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these
GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not
be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES" and the words
"RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."
It's more subtle than that. It's free distribution not free contents.
Free is an adjective, and as such does not stand in isolation. If
someone gives you a new hat with a logo on it the right to reproduce the
logo does not come with ownership of the hat. Intangible properties
such as rights are not treated the same way as tangible properties such
as hats.
GFDL allows for downstream reuses by all persons, not just for
educational purposes. It is also not an unconditional granting of
rights. It requires users to pass those same conditions on to
subsequent users, and provides that derivative works also be licensed in
the same way. In simple terms a user who does not do this is in breach
of license.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l