geni wrote: > 2009/1/9 Robert Rohde <[email protected]>: >> As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much >> better position to understand what the license requires than most >> reusers. > > The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to > understand. The WMF cannot provide legal advice and in that case > finding out what authors view as acceptable may well be more > worthwhile than legally meaningless advice.
It's not quite legally meaningless, in that legal decisions in practice aren't nearly as much like formal-logic inference as many people would like to pretend. In an ambiguous area of law with little precedent and a license that could be interpreted multiple ways, "I reused Wikipedia content in accordance with how Wikimedia said the license should be interpreted" would probably be granted some deference, if the Wikimedia interpretation were within the range of reasonable ones. -Mark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
