Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the better place... that would be a problem.
This is what IB appear to be alleging. All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :) Tom On 12 September 2012 12:09, FT2 <ft2.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > To tackle both these at once: > > *@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: * > > 1. WT's "mission" is stated clearly, "*Wikitravel is a project to create > a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide".* I > don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not > endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to > pursue > that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior. > 2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a "built in collaboration by > Wikitravellers from around the globe", not a site "built in > collaboration > with IB". The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members > of > the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not > consider > IB to have a heightened right to declare itself "the community" or "the > party obtaining mandatory agreement" in that collaboration. The initial > legal agreement (I gather) says as much. There is no evidence that > WT'ers > were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states. > Rather, > WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could > obtain better, which is completely separate. > 3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing > WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU > you > cite. When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they > did as > it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And > used > their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their > choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and > individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is > forced > to leave, or impeded in freewill. > > > *@Nemo:* > In fact AFAIK, this is legal > too<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_billboard>. > > > 1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food, > garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a > competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim > community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other > vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the > types > complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of > local > community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel > like > switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and > legal, > and happens every day. > 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. > Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was > involved. > > > FT2 > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan <deryckc...@wikimedia.hk > >wrote: > > > One possibility lies within their terms of use: > > "If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals > but > > refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach > > consensus<http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensus>or make > > concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this > > Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we > > reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal > -- > > to prevent you from disrupting our work together." > > > > The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals) > > does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a > > travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the > > fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on > > Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that > > they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which > is > > a form of breach of contract. > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) > <nemow...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members > > of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone > > with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and > > regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub > Xb" > > across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the list > of > > all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to > > send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop". > > Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say... > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
