In a message dated 5/4/2008 12:01:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight
Time,
thomas.dalton gmail.com writes:
I think it does state 5, but I don't think that clause was
written
with wikis in mind. I have no idea how you're meant to
determine the
top 5 authors.>>
----------------------------
Well after having a go-round with some wikipoopians over it,
it seems like
you only need to name the principal authors if you alter the
text in some way,
and none of our mirrors actually does it anyway, and no
one's ever been sued
for doing it contrariwise.
I.E. a tempest in a teapot used to attack people you don't
like instead of
actually fulfilling our mission.
Which is, in my mind, to provide a free encyclopedia, free
for anyone to do
anything they want with, and they probably will and do,
flauntly any
interpretation of the license whatsoever. It will be
interesting to see how these
"let's sell pages x1 through x10 of wikipedia to
audience y" go. I'm fairly
confident they won't be naming any of the authors at all.
Hey we're gonna set legal precedent, woo hoo !
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new
twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000300
00000001)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|