Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
Specifically, if Bomis is claiming ownership then they
can, on a whim
overnight change the license to anything they want. Not that I believe Jimbo
Wales would do such a thing, but car accidents happen all the time and
liquidators don't care didly about the project. Yeah, I know; all the older
versions of the 'pedia would still be under the FDL. But one of the reasons I
contribute is because I have the knowledge that what I do here will forever
be free and there will never be an unfree version. I really don't know if I
would continue contributing without this knowledge. --maveric149, Wednesday,
April 10, 2002
Jimbo what is the official position so the the text
can be updated?
BTW, what, if any, plans are there for licensing the "collection" of
articles? Could this be done with a dual license that would enable a future
non-free publication of the collection of articles (although the articles
themselves would still be 100% free -- if this is can be done, then one
couldn't amass more than a certain percentage of the articles in any one
publication without permission - not sure if that is even legal with the FDL,
let alone practical)? Last two questions have no intent or direction behind
them.... just interested.
I think that there's no way for anyone to "dual license" the articles,
not even me.
The official position is the copyright is held by the author(s) of a
given article, and they release it under the GFDL. Bomis can't
release a non-free version any more than anyone else can.
In the event that there is a substantial violation of the GFDL,
substantial to the point that a court resolution is necessary, and
perhaps monetary damages possible, then it would surely make sense for
several authors to join together (probably with me funding the effort
if I can) in the lawsuit, all profiting from the settlement.