2009/3/15 geni <[email protected]>: > Wikimedia is not a party to the license therefor it's FAQ is of no > relevance. The answer again goes to the license text. "You must...keep > intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide ,reasonable to > the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original > Author". > The mug maker could lose the case on the grounds that the license made > it clear that it is the person who is doing the reuse who has to > provide the credit and attempting to do it via third parties is not > legitimate. > However any guidelines the foundation uses must be as robust as > possible otherwise rather than being a significant part of the free > content movement wikipedia ends up as the copyright equivalent of a > radioactive mess no sane person would touch.
Good thing we're not using an impossible-to-obey licence like the GFDL, then. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
