Anthony DiPierro wrote: That seems like a reasonable analysis, but not to the point that I would be so alarmist about being taken to court. With an identified and active contributor we at least have the opportunity to seek out his opinion on the situation. If someone complains of a copyvio that was submitted anonymously we have to give that complainer the benefit of the doubt as long as he can identify the rights that were violated. The threat of an immediate lawsuit should not need to be the primary concern; ethics and integrity should be. When things get that far it becomes clear that one or both of the parties has decided to be a jerk. Suing in such situations is not an easy process. As a condition of joining the rest of the world of copyright law the United States had to accept that registration was not a pre-condition to having work validly copyright; nevertheless, one can only collect for damages that took place after registration. As long as the problem lies with the original Wikipedia article it is much easier to deal with we can go to the history, and see who contributed what. This is not available downstream. A mere list of contributors provides no opportunity to isolate the work of any single contributor. Lately, when things have been transwikied for completely valid reasons to Wiktionary a contribution history list is also put on the talk page, but that history is completely useless because it may have related to an edit war over points that are of absolutely no interest to Wiktionary. It would be much nicer to drop all the irrelevancies from that list. Ec

It is to run on ipodlinux, because I didn't find a way to write programs for the regular iPod OS. Robert