We can probably get away with it, since we have an educational goal, no commercial interests, and are not an attractive target for lawsuits, but selling (extracts from) Wikipedia in any form is made almost impossible by these fair use landmines.
(Chuck Smith msochuck@yahoo.com):
We can probably get away with it, since we have an educational goal, no commercial interests, and are not an attractive target for lawsuits, but selling (extracts from) Wikipedia in any form is made almost impossible by these fair use landmines.
From what I understood. I could go out tomorrow, print Wikipedia as an 20-volume encyclopedia set and start selling it tomorrow, without having any legal problems. Am I wrong here? Perhaps a CD-format would be more practical though. ;-)
You're not wrong; that's probably well within the confines of both the GFDL and fair use. However, the FTC might have something to say about marketing a non-saleable product...
Also, could someone direct me to a page that illustrates why being under the GFDL license is better than simply being public domain. I've pretty much ignored all the discussions before about it, but now I'm involved in a few projects and we're thinking about our license policies, so...
There's really only one reason: more people are willing to contribute to copylefted projects than to PD projects. It's purely a human emotional response: some people feel cheated if their generosity is used in other ways, and so they are more willing to work for a project that enforces that. (Though others, like me, would say that it wasn't really generosity in that case).
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 14:22, Chuck Smith wrote:
We can probably get away with it, since we have an educational goal, no commercial interests, and are not an attractive target for lawsuits, but selling (extracts from) Wikipedia in any form is made almost impossible by these fair use landmines.
From what I understood. I could go out tomorrow,
print Wikipedia as an 20-volume encyclopedia set and start selling it tomorrow, without having any legal problems. Am I wrong here? Perhaps a CD-format would be more practical though. ;-)
Let's say you don't make any formatting modifications or changes, and just sell Wikipedia in bound form. Your obligation then essentially becomes to "take reasonably prudent steps...to ensure that [the version of Wikipedia.org that you used] will remain thus accessible...until at least one year after the last time you distribute" your bound copies.
Those reasonably prudent steps could certainly involve paying Bomis something to keep the archive you used accessible.
If you make any changes to the files, then you can't rely on what's on wikipedia.org; you'd have to put up your own website with the modified files.
That's the difference from public domain.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org