I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their "illegal" re-use.
http://download.wikimedia.org On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote: > 2009/1/8 Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu>: > > Another question: Given the WMF admission in the FAQ that the GFDL has * > > never* been followed in re-use of Wikipedia content due to the insane > > difficulty of doing so, and given its rampant "illegal" re-use on the > web, > > and the WMF's ignoring this illegal re-use for years on end, what chance > is > > there that a court of law would find that the GFDL actually applies to > this > > content were someone to sue a re-user? > > > > Isn't it true that the efforts to force re-users to appropriately > atrribute > > the content have not actually asked them to follow the letter of the > GFDL? > > > > Is a license that is never enforced truly a license, in the legal sense? > > The license is between the author and the re-user, the fact that the > WMF has tolerated it being violated is irrelevant. You can lose a > trademark by not defending it, but I don't think the same applies to > copyrights, so unless the individual owner can be shown to have said > it was all right not to follow the license to the letter, I don't see > why they can't sue. (IANAL, YMMV, BBQ) > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- You have successfully failed! _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
