> David Gerard said: > > ++++++++++++++ > > 2009/8/13 David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>: > >> 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. > > > "The contents of this book are reprinted from Wikipedia. Thanks to Dr > --- for making Wikipedia content available commercially in printed > form, in full observance of copyright requirements. We do this to > spread knowledge, after all!" > > > - d. > > +++++++++++++++ > > And David Gerard also says: > > =============== > 2009/8/14 Renata St <renatawiki at gmail.com>: > >>> As long as the books give sufficient indication that they are from >>> Wikipedia, ... > >> Inside the book -- yes, plenty of indication about copying. But nothing to >> warn you before you buy. People are buying these books tricked into thinking >> it's an original content. > > > Yuh. Point it out in reviews etc. > > > - d. > =============== > > To me, this smacks of an utter disregard for the intent and spirit of > the free license. It's the same sort of flippant administrative > attitude that (nearly) allowed Guy "JzG" Chapman to grossly plagiarize > my original, freely-licensed work, delete mine from the edit history, > then prance about claiming that the work was his own, written "ab > initio". That made me want to vomit, and now I feel like vomiting > again. > > Sorry to resurrect a thread like this, but I only became aware of the > phenomenon recently. > > To give an example of how such a book is marketed on Amazon: > >>>>>>>> > History of Buddhism (Paperback) > > by Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John > McBrewster (Editor) >>>>>>>> > > These people are not Wikipedia editors. Is it appropriate and/or > legal under the terms of the GFDL or the CC-by-SA for a > freely-licensed work to be "claimed" with a preposition such as "by", > which by any interpretation of the English language in this usage, > would connote authorship? Personally, I don't think it is appropriate > (thus that nauseous feeling I mentioned earlier). But, I'm not a > highly-paid lawyer, so maybe I just don't know better. I've been in > situations before where I know I am ethically correct, but helpless in > the light of the law. > > It strikes me that this is something that Creative Commons or other > organizations with Godwin-like attorneys should be aggressively > pursuing, but we didn't hear from any of them in the original thread, > did we? Mike, could you illuminate this conversation with your > professional opinion? > > Greg >
Sorry, I didn't edit the subject. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
