[WikiEN-l] Knol - Our first major scandel

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/25 Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/4/25  <WJhonson at aol.com>:
>>
>>> When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;)
>>> Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors
>>>  not displaying the license link?
>>>
>> The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do
>> anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.
>>
>>
> You're both right.  It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle
> that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely
> editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright
> law.  Whatever the eventual form of the licence, anyone who harbours the
> illusion that the WMF will step up to the plate to protect any
> individual's copyrights is being just plain fucking irresponsible in
> looking after his own rights.
>
> There is good reason why copyrights developed within civil law instead
> of criminal law.  It shouldn't be up to governments to prosecute private
> rights.

What editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an
article that it is freely editable by anyone? If you mean WP:OWN, that
is not intended to be a statement about legal ownership.