[Foundation-l] Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume"

[Mary Murrell]

I'd like to see a book publishing contract that is committed to GFDL. Does anyone have one they could share? 

Again, I'm not try to criticize or denigrate this project. I just think it raises a lot of questions that can't so easily be answered because we love copyleft licensing. It's a cross-breeding of legal frameworks, and I'm not sure the hybrid would automatically be what we might like it to be (i.e., the best of both worlds).


Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

Absolutely anyone is free to take Wikimedia content and use it for
whatever purpose they want - including commercial use. The only
restrictions on this is that any derivative work has to be similarly
copy-left licensed (GFDL), and a few more things.

Because a big print house has decided to print Wikimedia content,
doesn't mean the license has changed. The license is inviolable - once
something is committed to the GFDL, it cannot be uncommitted. All
derivative work based on GFDL licensed content must be GFDL. It
actually says a lot about the way in which traditional print is
adapting to copy-left licenses. Many traditional print houses which
previously relied on restrictive copyright are now being forced to
cope with copy-left licensing as a consequence of the juicy fruits
borne by copy-left projects.



       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.