Mailing List Archive

2008/10/20 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:
> I just got a reply from a lawyer about wp-content and other work on a
> site, it is the "other" part that sparked the discussion (boring stuff
> about somone that does not want to pay for some work), and they claim
> that "all rights lies at (company), which is responsible for the site
> and the continued operation of this (site)".
>
> My question is, given that the content on this site comes from
> Wikipedia, and is licensed gfdl, how can they claim that they have all
> rights? Is this a violation of the license? I think it is if they try to
> claim that they have ownership of the articles.

Ask a lawyer. My non-expert opinion is that just saying you have
rights doesn't mean much so you're not violating the license unless
you actually do something which would require rights you don't have.
You might be able to do them for defamation of title, I don't really
know anything about that.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Given that we have no clue what this lawyer has said.. given that we have no
clue what was asked of him, I am sure that there is not enough basis to
comment. It seems obvious from what you say that there is a lawyer that
claims something. It is equally obvious that there is a reply to such
claims. I do hope that you have asked Mike Godwin his opinion and given him
more information. You (may) know that we always claim that the authors are
the copyright holders so in the end they are the ones that have to make
waves.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no> wrote:

> I just got a reply from a lawyer about wp-content and other work on a
> site, it is the "other" part that sparked the discussion (boring stuff
> about somone that does not want to pay for some work), and they claim
> that "all rights lies at (company), which is responsible for the site
> and the continued operation of this (site)".
>
> My question is, given that the content on this site comes from
> Wikipedia, and is licensed gfdl, how can they claim that they have all
> rights? Is this a violation of the license? I think it is if they try to
> claim that they have ownership of the articles.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

My gross guess is that the lawyer don't have a clue about the licenses
and just make a wild guess. I've put up a note on the sites involved,
and I am going to try to figure out what the lawyer really tries to say
tomorrow.

In very general terms; I guess he tries to say that I can't claim
payment because I've given away the codework to this company. But at the
same time he says the company has all rights to the content, which I
seriously doubt they has.

If they stick to their claim I'll try to write up a note to Mike Godwin.

John

Gerard Meijssen skrev:
> Hoi,
> Given that we have no clue what this lawyer has said.. given that we have no
> clue what was asked of him, I am sure that there is not enough basis to
> comment. It seems obvious from what you say that there is a lawyer that
> claims something. It is equally obvious that there is a reply to such
> claims. I do hope that you have asked Mike Godwin his opinion and given him
> more information. You (may) know that we always claim that the authors are
> the copyright holders so in the end they are the ones that have to make
> waves.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no> wrote:
>
>> I just got a reply from a lawyer about wp-content and other work on a
>> site, it is the "other" part that sparked the discussion (boring stuff
>> about somone that does not want to pay for some work), and they claim
>> that "all rights lies at (company), which is responsible for the site
>> and the continued operation of this (site)".
>>
>> My question is, given that the content on this site comes from
>> Wikipedia, and is licensed gfdl, how can they claim that they have all
>> rights? Is this a violation of the license? I think it is if they try to
>> claim that they have ownership of the articles.
>>
>> John
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l