Fred Bauder wrote:
I think Flexicon is the logical defendent with
Wikipedia as a the
should we chose to not accept repeated violations of our copyright, if
contact with them requesting compliance proves unproductive. Ulrich
right to point this out but throwing in the "five author" question is
productive as we do want people, including commercial sites, to reuse
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.
So if Wikipedia can't be plaintiff, and you as an individual author are
not willing to be plaintiff, then GFDL is no more than a paper tiger
since violators may copy things with impunity.