--- lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
I'll be the token dissenter here. I certainly
care what anyone else does with free content--that's
why I made it free in the first place, because my
imagination for what uses it might be put to is
limited. Let any take it for any reason--for free
or for profit--as long as they don't commit outright
fraud by claiming that they created it and attach
their own copyright notice, it's still free.
To some extent I agree with this.
I think the only
think we should be asking for is some form of
acknowledgement that it came from Wikipedia. I think
making the requirements too onerous will discourage
people from using Wikipedia content, and retard
In support of the general idea, though, I should
point out that making the requirement doesn't
actually prevent any other uses, it just makes them
non-automatic. Bomis could still grant permission
for uses that violated the GFDL on an individual
No, Bomis can't. Bomis only holds the copyright to
material contributed by Bomis employees. All the other
material contributed by others is copyrighted by them.
So Bomis can only give permission for the terms of the
license to be changed if the content is purely the
work of Bomis employees, which given the collective
authorship of Wikipedia articles is unlikely. In order
to vary the terms of the license, you'd basically need
agreement from every contributor. (On a side note, how
many people working on Wikipedia actually are employed
by Bomis? There's Larry, Jimbo, and who else?).
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.