I have submitted the following to GNU.org
It doesn't make sense to send something like this to a gnu.org mailing list.
The GNU project does not accept copyrights in any official capacity--that
work is done by the FSF. And, it's really only worth emailing them if people
actually assigned copyright
Is 19.95 your cost? I'ver mentioned before that this is the best way to
effectively put them out of business.
From: Gregory Kohs
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 10:10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publi
I wonder what Alphascript will think of this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/6130037589
Americans love a good bargain. Too bad I don't have the time to
duplicate this effort the 5,000 times to keep up with them.
Greg
___
foundation-l mailing
I have submitted the following to GNU.org, to Amazon, to Alphascript
Publishing, and the FTC, so maybe they can professionally sort it out.
I may not have legal footing, but if not, it still stinks:
Amazon.com is allowing the fraudulent marketing of published content
by Alphascript Publishing.
T
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Look, if the license is itself a feeble instrument that almost begs to
> be mocked, then I guess the "caveat emptor" applies not only to the
> stooges who might buy these books (is there any evidence that anyone
> is actually purchasing them?
Robert Rohde said:
+
At its core though, the fact that Wikipedia works can be repackaged
and sold is a feature of the free content movement.
+
Via trickery? Some accomplishment.
Andrew Gray says:
=
this may be a failing of Amazon
=
Amazon... Where have I hear
What can Creative Commons or Wikimedia do in these cases? They aren't
the rights holders, so even if they wanted to they couldn't sue. And
if they could sue, they couldn't afford it. Legal remedies are
available to the folks whose work is included, but I think generally
speaking they may not have m
> David Gerard said:
>
> ++
>
> 2009/8/13 David Goodman :
>
>> I would be exceedingly uncomfortable with us organizing a negative
>> campaign against any publisher not actually violating our copyright.
>> . A factual campaign, providing information is another matter. It
>> would be ent
