On 25 April 2011 08:13, Andre Engels <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joan Goma <[email protected]> wrote: >> As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the >> copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other >> way around. >> >> I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without >> going to court. >> >> They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles >> from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a >> derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what >> they say. > > I disagree. The license doesn't make derived works CCSA, it makes it > illegal to publish them unless under CCSA terms. You can't just go > from "you were not allowed to do X without my permission", "I gave you > my permission provided you did Y" and "you did X" to "you did Y". > Also, think of the effect that this would have on the rights of other > people who submitted material to Baidu Baike. They have never agreed > with the CCSA or even knowingly had anything to do with it, yet their > material is brought under that license.
I concur. I've never heard any legal opinion saying that violating the copyright of something under CC-BY-SA creates an implicit CC-BY-SA license. They have violated copyright so, in the eyes of the law, the remedy is to sue them for damages. That is the only legal remedy I am aware of. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
