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.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Kurt Jansson jansson(a)gmx.net XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
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
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: