My reply to this obvious legal issue question posted on the legal list: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-December/000109.html to join that list: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The Defendent
"...the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the
GNU
Free Documentation License (GFDL)"
This statement gives us standing as licensor, the defendent is a licensee under the GFDL.
Fred
From: Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:29:54 -0800 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The Defendent
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think Flexicon is the logical defendent with Wikipedia as a the
plaintiff
should we chose to not accept repeated violations of our copyright, if contact with them requesting compliance proves unproductive. Ulrich
Fuchs is
right to point this out but throwing in the "five author" question is
not
productive as we do want people, including commercial sites, to reuse
our
material without onerous requirements.
I'm not sure how Wikipedia could be the plaintiff, as it doesn't hold copyright to the material. The material I've submitted to Wikipedia, for example, is copyrighted by me. I have licensed it under the GFDL, so Wikipedia, as well as anyone else willing to abide by the terms of the GFDL, is free to use my text. But they have no more rights to it than any other random person or entity does.
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l