Jeff Warnica wrote:
On Fri, 2004-20-08 at 12:58 -0400, Michael Becker wrote:
though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no
The opposite of copyrighted is "public domain". Works covered by the GPL, and the FDL ARE copyrighted. It is copyright law that provides for the legal backing of the GPL/FDL (and for that matter, _any_ license).
"Opposite" is a misleading term. "Public domain" should really be taken to mean that the copyright is owned by the public, and thus is a public right that is deserving of protection. The criminal part of US copyright law does include a provsion to allow a $2,500 fine for claiming that something is copyright when it isn't. In theory this would seem to give credence to that idea of the public domain, but in practice that provision is a joke.
The legal backing for licensing is not copyright law but contract law.
Ec