[Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view
mnemonic at gmail.com
Fri Mar 20 23:51:48 UTC 2009
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> As Wikipedia is becoming more and more a regular part of our
> civilization, we may expect more and more regular behavior. We already
> had malicious legal attacks in UK, Germany and France (I remember
> those three issues).
I'm aware of these, and other legal threats as well.
By building a position with significant holes, and attribution issue
> is still a significant hole, we are making unsustainable construction.
My assessment is different from yours.
> If we have, let's say, 10.000.000 of contributors and 1% of them
> (100.000) is not happy with Wikipedia because of any reason and 1% of
> them (1000) want to sue WMF or whoever and 1% of them can do it, we'll
> have 10 big problems. We may fail in just 10% of the cases and we'll
> suffer from significant consequences.
This is a version of Pascal's Wager. I don't really believe, however, the
risk is even as high as you suggest here. We'll be fine.
> After the first couple of such processes Wikipedia
> recommendations would loose any credibility.
I don't consider this a significant risk.
> BUT, if you think that there is no reasonable threat to be sued for
> "misleading recommendations", it doesn't cost a lot to try that way.
> Fixing credibility is much less dangerous than loosing two years
I don't think there's any reasonable threat of this sort.
More information about the foundation-l