I've been thinking. If there's a legal issue on a copyleft material, who
is legally in charge?
a) *All* editors
b) Most recent editor
c) Original editor
d) Any editor(s)
If a), then copyleft is up shit-creek, 'cos all it needs is one
GNU-compliant editor who blocks all legal challenges to stop problems.
If b), we're also stuck, for all it takes is that one blocker to be the
last editor.
If c), then that's bad, 'cos if someone made a stub article, they're
effectively the legal guardian of that work.
If d), then that's great. All we do is get Bomis/Wikipedia/Nupedia or
whatever to be an editor of the work, ensuring that they can act as the
main guys should stuff go wrong.
As for un-copylefting, *ALL* authors are required - so Wikipedia content
can, effectively, NEVER be proprietary unless seventy years pass between
edits.
I may be completely wrong, however...