[WikiEN-l] Re: Use of Wikipedia articles at Malaspina.com

[Ray Saintonge]

Toby Bartels wrote:

>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>>I strongly think we're better off formalizing a policy in which
>>>particular author attribution is not required. That is, by contributing
>>>to Wikipedia, you agree to be attributed as one of the "Wikipedia
>>>Contributors" or somesuch.
>>>
>>Well that certainly much more closely matches our social custom, in
>>which articles aren't "owned" by anyone, and we value all sorts of
>>contributions to the project without specifically privileging
>>'authorship'.
>>
>>But, how can we reconcile your suggestion with the FDL?
>>
>
>For past contributions, we probably can't.
>But for future contributions, we'd ask them to assign authorship rights
>to the Wikimedia Foundation. 
>
Another alternative may be that as authors we effectively appoint 
Wikimedia as our copyright agent, but with this may come Wikimedia's 
'''obligation''' to globally defend those rights.

Most of the discussion on this range of issues leaves the impression of 
being "stuck" with the GNU-FDL without any right to amend it to suit our 
own purposes.  When the whole project began basic copyright decisions 
obviously had to be made just to be able to function.  Most of us in 
allowing our efforts to be covered by GNU-FDL are more concerned with 
the spirit rather than the letter of that document.  I certainly do not 
agree that FSF should have the right to amend the document as it applies 
to us without the amendment having been fully discussed in one of our 
appropriate forums.  I don't recall any such discussion taking place in 
November 2002 when version 1.2 was adopted.

In this context I think that the establishment of Wikimedia provides an 
opportunity for us to develop our own home grown system that takes into 
consideration the particular problems that Wikipedia has encountered 
since its inception.  If the GNU-FDL (1.2) is to be a basis for that 
then Wikimedia must retain all rights to make subsequent amendments.

To date the Wikimedia Foundation does not have a published constitution 
or any kind of democratically chosen by-laws or internationally 
representative Board of Directors.  When it is finally elected that 
Board should give serious consideration to what kind of copyright 
licensing rules etc. should apply in the future before everybody's 
rights are massively transferred from Wikipedia (or whomever) to Wikimedia.

Eclecticology