David Goodman wrote: > 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 entirely appropriate for individuals, even in a somewhat > coordinated way, to add a review, just pointing out that it is > entirely a copy of a Wikipedia article, and available free in an > updated version from our website--and in updated form. >
It may still be violating moral rights, which are a part of the copyright law even though no penalties are provided. There could also be a case for fraudulent misrepresentation. Another alternative might be for Wikimedians to put together a company that would sell similar books to the public at cost, perhaps on a print on demand basis so as to get the latest versions. Article selection might be the same, and they could even use identical titles for each book, but there would be no deception about where the material comes from. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
