Larry Sanger <lsanger(a)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"…
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(a)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".
--
Robbe