On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
But that's exactly what Baidupedia has done.
The assurances to every
single
person who has ever contributed to a WMF project
are undermined as long
as
Baidupedia uses our content while claiming it as
their own, under
copyright.
It is not copying. Copying would be merely them
reusing the content. It's
their claim that THEY were the authors, that it belongs to them, that it
is
something they could potentially sue you over.
That is the theft; the
theft
of the authorship and ownership rights of the
Wikipedian who wrote the
content. It is fundamentally unacceptable that we support that.
I may be grossly
misreading what you just wrote above, or just not
being well enough informed about all the statements about our
licencing system on-wiki, but just to clarify; what precise
"assurances" are you talking about?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
The assurances that I am talking about are the statements that "by clicking
submit you are agreeing to license your submission under the GFDL". The GFDL
requires attribution. By requiring that our contributors use the GFDL (or
CC-BY-SA, or any other attribution required license), we are giving an
assurance to our contributors that their work will remain attributed to
them, and if it is not attributed to them they shall have some sort of
remedies available to them.
By tacitly accepting Baidupedia's actions, we're undermining that assurance,
by saying "Look, here's a wide swath of our work that is NOT attributed, and
there's nothing that guarantees your work won't be included in it, and we're
not going to do anything about it".
That's a huge turn-off to potential contributors.
Thank you for clarifying that. I don't agree with the gloss you
put on it 100 %, but that is okay.
I do agree though that we need to support efforts to have
recourse against infringers.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen