No subject

"Open content text and media are licensed by the copyright holder, Bomis, 
Inc., to the general public, permitting anyone to redistribute and alter the 
text free of charge, and guaranteeing that no one be able to restrict access 
to amended versions of the content. "

concerning the "copyright holder" part:

Please, can someone tell me this is outdated nonsense based on the previous 
OPL license? As I have come to understand the wikipedia copyright issue, 
everything contributed is released under the GNU FDL, PERIOD. I never once 
agreed to reassign copyright of my contributions over to Bomis or anyone else 
for that matter. That is part of the power of this project (So I thought?) -- 
everyone who contributes owns their material and agrees to release it under 
the terms of the GNU FDL -- making a non-free fork almost completely 
impossible (since everyone who ever contributed would have to agree to the 
change in license). Furthermore, the "guarantee" part read in context seems 
to imply the Bomis is the one granting the privilege to freely modify or 
redistribute all the material. Of course, if this wording is correct, then 
Bomis can also revoke that right to future versions (i.e. a non-free fork). 

Specifically, if Bomis is claiming ownership then they can, on a whim 
overnight change the license to anything they want. Not that I believe Jimbo 
Wales would do such a thing, but car accidents happen all the time and 
liquidators don't care didly about the project. Yeah, I know; all the older 
versions of the 'pedia would still be under the FDL. But one of the reasons I 
contribute is because I have the knowledge that what I do here will forever 
be free and there will never be an unfree version. I really don't know if I 
would continue contributing without this knowledge. --maveric149, Wednesday, 
April 10, 2002 

LDC replies to maveric:

I'm sure it's just outdated.  From the discussions we've had about the topic 
here and on the mailing list, it's clear that the intent is that Bomis hold a 
collection copyright on Wikipedia as a whole, but that individual articles 
are still copyrighted by their original author(s), who grant use of them 
under the GFDL to Bomis and to the public.  Further, Bomis grants license to 
use the collection under the GFDL as well.  Yes, there need to be clearer 
statements of these legal positions here.  -- Lee Daniel Crocker 

maveric then replies:

Thanks for the assurance LDC. BTW, I don't have much of a (if any) problem 
with Bomis having a "collection" copyright und the FDL -- it is their right 
for forking over the dough to pay the bills and providing a place for us all 
to contribute (so long as individual articles will forever be free). I would 
like to take this issue to the wikipedia mailing list though... Just so we 
can all be clear on this issue. --maveric149 


Jimbo what is the official position so the the text can be updated?

BTW, what, if any, plans are there for licensing the "collection" of 
articles? Could this be done with a dual license that would enable a future 
non-free publication of the collection of articles (although the articles 
themselves would still be 100% free -- if this is can be done, then one 
couldn't amass more than a certain percentage of the articles in any one 
publication without permission - not sure if that is even legal with the FDL, 
let alone practical)? Last two questions have no intent or direction behind 
them.... just interested.  


maveric149