IANAL, but in general we don't have as strong database type laws here in the US. Database copyright rules get kind of distrubing because you start getting into copyrighting information, instead of just expression.

Plus, everything is released under the GFDL and in a single downloadable file, so I think the intention is that if someone wants to they could mirror the whole thing.

And Kurts right, unless you sign over your copyright everything you do is your own, so the contributors of wikipedia all own their work released under the GFDL.

Ian Monroe http://ian.webhop.org

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Kurt Jansson jansson@gmx.net XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

Hi Axel!

...

Just a quick clarification on collection copyrights: if you put together a collection of materials, then you acquire a copyright in your particular presentation of the collection, not in the materials of the collection themselves.

Okay, but my question is: Does Bomis put together a collection of the articles, actively? I mean, Jimbo doesn't say: Okay, we'll take this article, it's good quality, but I'll keep that one out because it's complete nonsense (like a Linux distributor does).

You could perhaps say we all own the collection copyright (because everybody decides if an article is good or so bad that it should be edited/replaced/deleted). Or a collection copyright doesn't exist for Wikipedia, because it's just a source out of which people could create collections (e.g. printed encyclopedias).

But that's more my sense of justice than a funded knowing of the legal facts.

Bye, Kurt

[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l