On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
As is often stated WMF is an ISP, and not a
publisher.
Stating it often doesn't make it true. The WMF is quite clearly a
publisher. It even has admitted as much when it exercised the GFDL
clause purporting to allow "any World Wide Web server that publishes
copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody
to edit those works" to "republish" Wikipedia (et. al.) under
CC-BY-SA. Anyone who says the WMF is not a publisher is just plain
wrong.
So state it as much as you want. The WMF is a publisher. Under
Section 230 of the CDA it most likely won't be treated as a publisher,
but that doesn't mean it isn't a publisher.
The section 230 that would seem to matter here?
The WMF has all sorts of roles, depending on who you are, how you look
at it, and what your perspective is (and what day of the month it is,
etc). Referring to legal issues, one has to remain domain specific
when using specific terms in a legal sense.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com