Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
I think I'd like to find some plausible way to leave the exact wording open. The only disputed issue of any significance, I believe, is whether we will require a link back to the actual article URL on Wikipedia.
I still think that we would just have to *suggest* a few attributions we like, and 95 % of people would cut'n'paste one of these. I think the Free Software example shows that most people want to cooperate with the Copyright holders as much as possible (hey, they're giving away things!). And even the big boys can be persuaded by community pressure.
That's not to say that requirements are not needed; but giving people some slack may not be a bad idea. Requirements that I find useful:
* It must be made clear that/how the content in question is derived from Wikipedia (basic GFDL requirement). * The name "Wikipedia" must be mentioned * http://www.wikipedia.com/ must be linked to (if hypertext) or mentioned (otherwise). If the exact page URL is used instead, that's even better, but not required.
Regarding printed versions, I don't think giving the URL to the exact page wins us anything. People have to type it in both ways, and it's nicer to type in "wikipedia.com" first, have the browser figure "http://www.wikipedia.com/" and type in the page title into ... the Search field. Hmm, I would actually find a "go to this page" field, that does no searching useful on the homepage.
Example HTML that qualifies:
The following is a snapshot from a <a href="http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Caviar">Wikipedia article</a> (<a href="http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=Caviar">edit that article</a>)
Example from a printed text:
This article is based on material from Wikipedia, The Free Encylopedia. URL http://www.wikipedia.com/
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Plausible arguments have been made that the copyright rests with the original authors, and that Bomis/Wikipedia stands in the position of redistributor.
Since I don't remember signing (or even clicking "ok" on) an a copyright assignment, that seems the most realistic view. Bomis could possibly assert copyright on the /collection/ of articles.
The primary *disadvantage* to Bomis NOT owning copyright on the articles is standing in case of a lawsuit. I consider one of my jobs as trustee of the project is to sue the hell out of Microsoft or whoever if they try to do something unfree with the content. I'll have a harder time doing that if I'm not owner of the copyright, and lots of individual owners might be hard to organize into a coherent legal strategy.
Well, Bomis certainly has Copyrights on articles that were edited by its paid employees. Since Larry is doing a lot of work on Wikipedia, Bomis may well be the biggest single Copyright holder. This may already give you adequate standing in a lawsuit.
Contrast this with the situation of the FSF: were it not for Copyright assignments, the FSF would have *no* Copyright-relevant connection to many GNU projects, because FSF-employees did not write a single line of code for these.
All this stuff makes my head hurt, I must admit. I just want to make a free encyclopedia.
Me too. But these things should all be in order, before the big splash. Need I mention "Mathworld"?
Maybe this should be taken from the hands of us law amateurs and placed in those of professional counsel. Perhaps a lawyer with ties to the Free {Software,Database} community could be find that could give us a good "deal".