On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:58:12 +0000 "'Dragon' Dave McKee" d.n.mckee@durham.ac.uk wrote:
I've been thinking. If there's a legal issue on a copyleft material, who is legally in charge?
a) *All* editors b) Most recent editor c) Original editor d) Any editor(s)
If a), then copyleft is up shit-creek, 'cos all it needs is one GNU-compliant editor who blocks all legal challenges to stop problems.
If b), we're also stuck, for all it takes is that one blocker to be the last editor.
If c), then that's bad, 'cos if someone made a stub article, they're effectively the legal guardian of that work.
If d), then that's great. All we do is get Bomis/Wikipedia/Nupedia or whatever to be an editor of the work, ensuring that they can act as the main guys should stuff go wrong.
As for un-copylefting, *ALL* authors are required - so Wikipedia content can, effectively, NEVER be proprietary unless seventy years pass between edits.
You can't license retroactively, unless there's a clause which states that the license can be revoked at any time. What's already copylefted can't be uncopylefted. The withdrawing author might decide to place a version of his document/article under a more traditional copyright. But that would affect only the subsequent versions.