[WikiEN-l] What constitutes a copyvio?

[Jimmy Wales]

Steve Vertigum wrote:
> Sorry Fred -- I didnt "just revert" --I edited the
> material down to stub with barely the smell of the
> original on it.  (the sites copynotice just said "fine
> to copy for noncommercial reasons, just link here" -
> are we "commercial"?)

*Yes*, we should proceed as if we are.  I can't repeat this
often enough, I think.

We likely fit any reasonable definition of noncommercial on our own
website.  The website is owned by a nonprofit organization.  The
website does not have advertising.  The website is created by
volunteers working for the betterment of humanity, etc.

However, we are *also* releasing everything under the GNU FDL, which
does *not allow* discrimination against commercial endeavors.  So we
must assume that some of our licensees will be using the text for
expressly commercial purposes.

In this case, I can totally envision that some enterprising writer
deciding to publish a book on William Faulkner, called "The Faulkner
Encyclopedic Companion".  The book would consist completely of entries
lifted from wikipedia, and sold for profit.  That's totally legitimate.

And it's also why we can't use anything that *only* grants the right
of reuse for 'noncommercial' purposes.

Also, you write 'copy' -- the site gave permission, you say, to
'copy'.  But we don't just copy, we edit.  We produce derivative
works.

Everyone should take a good hard look at the SCO/Linux/IBM lawsuit.  I
think SCO is wrong in most details, but nonetheless the whole affair
raises a lot of troubling questions.

Now fast forward 5 years.  We are by far the dominant encyclopedia in
the world.  People view Britannica as a quaint old relic, but nothing
compared to the scope and quality of Wikipedia.  Super, and at that
point we will be a target for FUD charges that all we did was
plagiarize stuff from the net.  

This need not be a matter of technical legal copyright problems!  Our
standards go far beyond that of mere obediance to the law.  Even if
there were some legal gray area here (and there is not, IMHO), it's
still plagiarism.

--Jimbo