[Foundation-l] Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial", Is Wikpedia non commercial?

[jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've never heard of a major software company hauling
>> someone to court over a non-commercial/educational use license, and
>> while it's probably happened I doubt it's a frequent occurrence.
>>
>
> Probably doesn't fit your "major software company" definition, but:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
>
> In addition to a case like that (which involved redistribution), I'm sure
> lots of large companies have gotten fined for noncommercial-only software
> found during a software license compliance audit.
>
> Which doesn't really answer the question, but:
>
> *If you're editing Wikipedia from work for non-work reasons, you're probably
> breaking company policy as well as tax laws anyway.
> *If you're editing Wikipedia from home, the issue is highly unlikely to
> reach a court anyway.

Yes, But What I see is this, in my paranoid mind:

Company M prohibits X.
Company M gives students Z software Y to do something prohibited.
Student Z contributes software using software Y to project P.
Company M wants to now charge royalties for project P for violations,
because it knows that the work was infringing on some rights.

Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
"infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.

Just a crazy idea that has been following me.

mike