"Open content text and media are licensed by the copyright holder, Bomis,
Inc., to the general public, permitting anyone to redistribute and alter the
text free of charge, and guaranteeing that no one be able to restrict access
to amended versions of the content. "
concerning the "copyright holder" part:
Please, can someone tell me this is outdated nonsense based on the previous
OPL license? As I have come to understand the wikipedia copyright issue,
everything contributed is released under the GNU FDL, PERIOD. I never once
agreed to reassign copyright of my contributions over to Bomis or anyone else
for that matter. That is part of the power of this project (So I thought?) --
everyone who contributes owns their material and agrees to release it under
the terms of the GNU FDL -- making a non-free fork almost completely
impossible (since everyone who ever contributed would have to agree to the
change in license). Furthermore, the "guarantee" part read in context seems
to imply the Bomis is the one granting the privilege to freely modify or
redistribute all the material. Of course, if this wording is correct, then
Bomis can also revoke that right to future versions (i.e. a non-free fork).
Specifically, if Bomis is claiming ownership then they can, on a whim
overnight change the license to anything they want. Not that I believe Jimbo
Wales would do such a thing, but car accidents happen all the time and
liquidators don't care didly about the project. Yeah, I know; all the older
versions of the 'pedia would still be under the FDL. But one of the reasons I
contribute is because I have the knowledge that what I do here will forever
be free and there will never be an unfree version. I really don't know if I
would continue contributing without this knowledge. --maveric149, Wednesday,
April 10, 2002
LDC replies to maveric:
I'm sure it's just outdated. From the discussions we've had about the topic
here and on the mailing list, it's clear that the intent is that Bomis hold a
collection copyright on Wikipedia as a whole, but that individual articles
are still copyrighted by their original author(s), who grant use of them
under the GFDL to Bomis and to the public. Further, Bomis grants license to
use the collection under the GFDL as well. Yes, there need to be clearer
statements of these legal positions here. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
maveric then replies:
Thanks for the assurance LDC. BTW, I don't have much of a (if any) problem
with Bomis having a "collection" copyright und the FDL -- it is their right
for forking over the dough to pay the bills and providing a place for us all
to contribute (so long as individual articles will forever be free). I would
like to take this issue to the wikipedia mailing list though... Just so we
can all be clear on this issue. --maveric149
Jimbo what is the official position so the the text can be updated?
BTW, what, if any, plans are there for licensing the "collection" of
articles? Could this be done with a dual license that would enable a future
non-free publication of the collection of articles (although the articles
themselves would still be 100% free -- if this is can be done, then one
couldn't amass more than a certain percentage of the articles in any one
publication without permission - not sure if that is even legal with the FDL,
let alone practical)? Last two questions have no intent or direction behind
them.... just interested.
maveric149