2009/4/25 Ray Saintonge <[email protected]>: > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/4/25 <[email protected]>: >> >>> When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;) >>> Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors >>> not displaying the license link? >>> >> The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do >> anything about it. The actual authors need to complain. >> >> > You're both right. It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle > that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely > editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright > law. Whatever the eventual form of the licence, anyone who harbours the > illusion that the WMF will step up to the plate to protect any > individual's copyrights is being just plain fucking irresponsible in > looking after his own rights. > > There is good reason why copyrights developed within civil law instead > of criminal law. It shouldn't be up to governments to prosecute private > rights.
What editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely editable by anyone? If you mean WP:OWN, that is not intended to be a statement about legal ownership. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
