Now, Jimbo, do you agree with that? It's "those who wrote the content" who would have the legal standing to sue if, for example, Microsoft were to make an altered version of Wikipedia and try to copyright and sell it?

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Mark Christensen wrote:

I want to publically apologize, I intended that last message to go directly to Larry, not to the list. I'll try to discuss the issue with Larry offline untill we at least both understand what the other is trying to say.

Also, I agree, the issue of concensus is clearly of secondary importance to understanding what acutally is the case, regardless of what anybody thought in the past.

In the mean time, let me answer Larry's question briefly.

I don't think anybody could sucessfully sue, because we have a strong argument that the wikipedians page fulfills the FDL authorship requirement. But it would be the copyright holders (those who wrote content) who would have the legal standing to sue if there were in fact an actuall violation.

Yours Mark

-----Original Message----- From: Larry Sanger To: 'wikipedia-l@nupedia.com' Sent: 2/6/02 6:35 PM Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights

I don't see that there has been the consensus you mention. Frankly, I don't care if there has been, because I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking for clarification, for pete's sake! Sheesh!

OK, let me put my confusion a different way, because I still don't understand:

WHO has the right to sue, and FOR WHAT do they have that right?

Larry

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