I was not clear. Those who wrote content would have standing to sue, as
would Bomis, because the writers own the copyright to the texts, and Bomis
owns the copyright to the collection.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger
To: Mark Christensen
Cc: ''wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com' '
Sent: 2/6/02 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights
Now, Jimbo, do you agree with that? It's "those who wrote the content"
who would have the legal standing to sue if, for example, Microsoft were
to make an altered version of Wikipedia and try to copyright and sell
it?
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Mark Christensen wrote:
I want to publically apologize, I intended that last
message to go
directly
to Larry, not to the list. I'll try to discuss
the issue with Larry
offline
untill we at least both understand what the other is
trying to say.
Also, I agree, the issue of concensus is clearly of secondary
importance to
understanding what acutally is the case, regardless of
what anybody
thought
in the past.
In the mean time, let me answer Larry's question briefly.
I don't think anybody could sucessfully sue, because we have a strong
argument that the wikipedians page fulfills the FDL authorship
requirement.
But it would be the copyright holders (those who wrote
content) who
would
have the legal standing to sue if there were in fact
an actuall
violation.
Yours
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger
To: 'wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com'
Sent: 2/6/02 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights
I don't see that there has been the consensus you mention. Frankly, I
don't care if there has been, because I'm not arguing with you, I'm
asking
for clarification, for pete's sake! Sheesh!
OK, let me put my confusion a different way, because I still don't
understand:
WHO has the right to sue, and FOR WHAT do they have that right?
Larry
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l