Larry Sanger wrote:
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?
I think, absent an explicit assignment of copyright, preferably in
writing, that we should assume this.
If they took the _entire_ Wikipedia, or even a _substantial part_,
then I assume our copyright on "the collection" might mean something
useful. I'm not sure to what extent that's the case, though.
And finally, of course, the name Wikipedia is our trademark, and that
gives us some significant leverage over certain types of bad uses of
our content.