This needs to be stated, since they're trying to frame Gianno for "copyright violations".
Durova's email was sent to this list:
http://www.webcitation.org/5TdnT9Lhy
Note the GNU logo on the bottom of the page.
By posting it to the list, she was releasing it under the GNU free license applicable under the list. All that needed to be done was for the person using the text was to attribute it to her, which (obviously) was done.
Anyone, anywhere can post it, as long as you say that Durova wrote it originally and quote the licensing text as required.
Case closed.
(I find it quite amusing that WP/Wikia is getting bit on the ass because of their own very sketchy understanding of these licenses that they work so hard to promote....)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 9:57am) 
Case closed.
(I find it quite amusing that WP/Wikia is getting bit on the ass because of their own very sketchy understanding of these licenses that they work so hard to promote....)
This is beautiful, isn't it? In light of this, my recent e-mail to Florence and Eloquence ought to be forwarded to Godwin and Gardner, too, I suppose.
Greg
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 26th November 2007, 4:08pm)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 9:57am)
Case closed.
(I find it quite amusing that WP/Wikia is getting bit on the ass because of their own very sketchy understanding of these licenses that they work so hard to promote....)
This is beautiful, isn't it? In light of this, my recent e-mail to Florence and Eloquence ought to be forwarded to Godwin and Gardner, too, I suppose.
Greg
...somebody needs to inform Gianno of this, since they're obviously going after him because of the copyright issues. Nobody's figured this out over there yet, I think...and you'd think that Carey Bass would have thought of that before he went ballistic (or is that Ballistique?) on Gianno. But, ya hire cheap help and that's what ya get, huh?
One more thought...How can something released under a "GNU-free License" be considered to be private? If it were private, you wouldn't need the license to begin with, would you?
So, the presence of the license would imply that none of the conversations on the list can be considered private, wouldn't it? Somebody debunk this, if you can....It sounds like a pretty good angle to me, though...
Something is rotten in the State of Denmark
People can lawyer these cases from now until doomsday.
But there is a more interesting question here which transcends legal nitpicking.
Even if the list in question were genuinely secret/private/confidential under a blood-pact covenant, what is the moral/ethical obligation that arises if the traffic on the list violates the fundamental principles of due process that the traffickers have sworn to in the public sector of the case?
The corruption of due process through the abuse of behind-the-scenes machinations is hardly a novel practice.
And it makes good fodder for playwrights, too.
People can lawyer these cases from now until doomsday.
But there is a more interesting question here which transcends legal nitpicking.
Even if the list in question were genuinely secret/private/confidential under a blood-pact covenant, what is the moral/ethical obligation that arises if the traffic on the list violates the fundamental principles of due process that the traffickers have sworn to in the public sector of the case?
The corruption of due process through the abuse of behind-the-scenes machinations is hardly a novel practice.
And it makes good fodder for playwrights, too.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 26th November 2007, 4:17pm)
Something is rotten in the State of Denmark
People can lawyer these cases from now until doomsday.
But there is a more interesting question here which transcends legal nitpicking.
Even if the list in question were genuinely secret/private/confidential under a blood-pact covenant, what is the moral/ethical obligation that arises if the traffic on the list violates the fundamental principles of due process that the traffickers have sworn to in the public sector of the case?
The corruption of due process through the abuse of behind-the-scenes machinations is hardly a novel practice.
And it makes good fodder for playwrights, too.
Of course, you're right. And the moral implications are certainly very profound and merit examination.
But part of what I'm trying to do here is to help poor Gianno out with his defense. If the email is not private, then what has he done? He's only published a piece of prose which has been released under the GNU-free license and credited its author with authorship Where is the problem with this?
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 10:24am)
But part of what I'm trying to do here is to help poor Gianno out with his defense. If the email is not private, then what has he done? He's only published a piece of prose which has been released under the GNU-free license and credited its author with authorship Where is the problem with this?
Perhaps Giano will weigh in on this question, but it occurs to me that a more devastating effect on Giano (and others who empathize with his plight) is the erosion of faith in the core process. Once one loses faith in the integrity of due process, saving one high-profile victim from the jaws of a corrupt machine is a largely meaningless token.
Maybe I'm missing it, but where does it say all the mailing list posts are released under a GNU license? (And which one?)
The GNU logo is there because the list is run by an install of the GNU Project's Mailman software.
The GNU logo is there because the list is run by an install of the GNU Project's Mailman software.
QUOTE(MrM @ Mon 26th November 2007, 4:58pm)
Maybe I'm missing it, but where does it say all the mailing list posts are released under a GNU license? (And which one?)
The GNU logo is there because the list is run by an install of the GNU Project's Mailman software.
It's here.
It's the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
QUOTE
Wikia content will, therefore, will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.
The TOS is here.
QUOTE
Any content you upload or post to any Wikia, Inc. wiki must be compatible with the relevant license (for example, the GFDL for any Wikia, or the relevant CC license for other wikis),
Those links are about 'The text of all Wikia sites' or (even more limited) content posted to a wiki.
A mailing list is neither, and since it's an unarchived list, the text isn't placed on a wikia site.
A mailing list is neither, and since it's an unarchived list, the text isn't placed on a wikia site.
QUOTE(MrM @ Mon 26th November 2007, 5:20pm)
Those links are about 'The text of all Wikia sites' or (even more limited) content posted to a wiki.
A mailing list is neither, and since it's an unarchived list, the text isn't placed on a wikia site.
I believe that legally "content" refers to all information which passes through a site's servers. In any case, by using the list, all participants are agreeing to comply with the TOS. And the TOS says that all content is licensed under GFDL.
In any case, if it comes to that, I don't think that there's any way that Gianno can be attacked for copyright violations, since, at best, this is simply not very clear. Any judge would look at this and say "what are you doing in my courtroom?".
Giano certainly would not be made to suffer any damages, as it would be just about impossible for Durova to show that he lost any income based on the reposting of an email (he doesn't quite have the standing to go publishing a book of his emails).
I'm certain all the copyright business is really just being framed in the context of DMCA takedown requests, which gives the Foundation people a handy pretext for removing the text wherever they find it.
I'm certain all the copyright business is really just being framed in the context of DMCA takedown requests, which gives the Foundation people a handy pretext for removing the text wherever they find it.
QUOTE(MrM @ Mon 26th November 2007, 10:35am)
Giano certainly would not be made to suffer any damages, as it would be just about impossible for Durova to show that he lost any income based on the reposting of an email (he doesn't quite have the standing to go publishing a book of his emails).
I'm certain all the copyright business is really just being framed in the context of DMCA takedown requests, which gives the Foundation people a handy pretext for removing the text wherever they find it.
Right. They will remove things as it suits them. Giano's rights with respect to GNU may have some rule oriented basis, but they apply rules haphazardly anyways.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 26th November 2007, 5:58pm)
QUOTE(MrM @ Mon 26th November 2007, 10:35am)
Giano certainly would not be made to suffer any damages, as it would be just about impossible for Durova to show that he lost any income based on the reposting of an email (he doesn't quite have the standing to go publishing a book of his emails).
I'm certain all the copyright business is really just being framed in the context of DMCA takedown requests, which gives the Foundation people a handy pretext for removing the text wherever they find it.
Right. They will remove things as it suits them. Giano's rights with respect to GNU may have some rule oriented basis, but they apply rules haphazardly anyways.
Off of the "proposed decisions" page of the Arb-com case (yes they're already voting....)
QUOTE
Private correspondence
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Support:
1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Support:
1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Hmm....Looks like Godwin is looking at this pretty closely too....
Aaand she gave up her sysop access. Pity there are still plenty of abusive admins left to take up the crusade.
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 12:31pm)
QUOTE
Private correspondence
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Support:
1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Support:
1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Hmm....Looks like Godwin is looking at this pretty closely too....
I'm thinking that this sekrit mailing list, transacted by some electronic software on the Wikia.com server, may indeed have some degree of "private" characteristics.
However, we must always keep sight of the fact that the communications effected on this list resulted in the real-world application and/or denial of access rights for a charitable, non-profit, donor-funded website that purports to be "open" and "free". Let me assure the "jury" of peers reading this particular thread -- when whistle-blowers uncover unjust or illegal acts, they often are forced (nay, encouraged) by law and by society to temporarily violate certain laws pertaining to privacy or copyright, so that the larger injustice may ultimately be prosecuted.
In this case, User:Giano is hardly different from Cynthia Cooper who uncovered over $3 billion in phony bookkeeping at WorldCom. Wikipedia seems to put it rather nicely:
QUOTE
In March 2002, an executive told <Cynthia Cooper> that the corporate accounting department had taken $400 million from the wireless division reserves in order to boost WorldCom's income. Cooper raised her concerns with Arthur Andersen, WorldCom's accounting firm, and she was told that it was not her problem. When she continued to raise her concerns, WorldCom's Chief Financial Officer, Scott Sullivan, told Cooper to back off.
Having seen Andersen's role in the Enron debacle, Cooper was worried that WorldCom could not necessarily rely on their audits. Cooper and her team decided to check the work done by Andersen. In late May 2002, Cooper and her team discovered a gaping hole in the books. In public reports the company had falsely categorised billions of dollars as capital expenditures in 2001. This allowed WorldCom to turn a $662 million loss into a $2.4 billion profit.
On June 11 2002, Sullivan asked Cooper to delay the audit and she refused. The next day Cooper told the head of the audit committee about her findings. Finally, Cooper and her team confronted WorldCom's controller David Myers who, according to an internal audit memo, admitted that he knew the accounting could not be justified. On June 20, Cooper and C. Glyn Smith, Jr. attended an audit-committee meeting of WorldCom's board of directors at which Sullivan was to explain his accounting strategy. Sullivan asked for more time to fully support his argument. When he could not justify his accounting strategy, he was asked to resign. Sullivan refused to step down and was fired on June 24. The next day, WorldCom came clean about its financial situation.
In August 2002, Sullivan was indicted on charges of securities fraud. WorldCom filed for bankruptcy and 17,000 employees were made redundant around the globe. Shareholders have lost some $3 billion. The California public employees' retirement system, the largest state pension fund in the United States, lost $580 million it had invested in WorldCom.
Cooper continued to work at WorldCom (which has now changed its name to MCI) before leaving to run her own consulting business. Despite the fact that WorldCom carried out many of her recommendations, Cooper was not personally thanked by any senior executive for her actions. However, she has received more than 100 letters and e-mails from strangers thanking her and offering encouragement.
Having seen Andersen's role in the Enron debacle, Cooper was worried that WorldCom could not necessarily rely on their audits. Cooper and her team decided to check the work done by Andersen. In late May 2002, Cooper and her team discovered a gaping hole in the books. In public reports the company had falsely categorised billions of dollars as capital expenditures in 2001. This allowed WorldCom to turn a $662 million loss into a $2.4 billion profit.
On June 11 2002, Sullivan asked Cooper to delay the audit and she refused. The next day Cooper told the head of the audit committee about her findings. Finally, Cooper and her team confronted WorldCom's controller David Myers who, according to an internal audit memo, admitted that he knew the accounting could not be justified. On June 20, Cooper and C. Glyn Smith, Jr. attended an audit-committee meeting of WorldCom's board of directors at which Sullivan was to explain his accounting strategy. Sullivan asked for more time to fully support his argument. When he could not justify his accounting strategy, he was asked to resign. Sullivan refused to step down and was fired on June 24. The next day, WorldCom came clean about its financial situation.
In August 2002, Sullivan was indicted on charges of securities fraud. WorldCom filed for bankruptcy and 17,000 employees were made redundant around the globe. Shareholders have lost some $3 billion. The California public employees' retirement system, the largest state pension fund in the United States, lost $580 million it had invested in WorldCom.
Cooper continued to work at WorldCom (which has now changed its name to MCI) before leaving to run her own consulting business. Despite the fact that WorldCom carried out many of her recommendations, Cooper was not personally thanked by any senior executive for her actions. However, she has received more than 100 letters and e-mails from strangers thanking her and offering encouragement.
It is our duty as watchful observers of Wikipedia to make sure that the WMF is duly aggressive in stamping out private back-channel lists that influence or dictate Wikipedia policy. And especially, that the WMF sever these remaining ties with Wikia, Inc. and its senior management who have been shown (time and again) to be unnecessarily meddling in WMF functions.
I encourage every Wikipedia critic on this list to write a short letter to your local newspapers and to your representative politicians, briefly explaining what has happened this week. The following might serve as a core document of the points you should cover:
QUOTE
1. Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia. It is managed by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), and its mission is to provide free and open dissemination of knowledge to the world, in many languages.
2. Both the WMF and the for-profit enterprise Wikia, Inc. have personnel who serve on the Boards of both organizations. Wikia, Inc. -- a company financed with $14 million in venture capital -- has filed Form 990 documents with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that maintain there are no conflicts of interest in the cross-management of the two organizations.
3. However, it was revealed this week that Wikia, Inc. was hosting a secret mailing list comprised exclusively of hand-picked Wikipedia administrators and certain representatives of the Foundation, including Wikipedia co-founder himself, Jimmy Wales.
4. This mailing list's secret activity centered on discussion of the identities and even IP addresses of various "questionable" contributors to the Wikipedia encyclopedia, in order to build "wiki sleuthing" cases against said contributors. This past week, the list's spurious findings prompted the indefinite blocking of a long-standing valuable contributor to Wikipedia's pages. When evidence of this list was exposed by a whistle-blower (one having a long record of writing "featured articles" on Wikipedia), that evidence was repeatedly suppressed or erased by a senior staff member of the WMF. Days later, the cited ownership of the secret list was even altered, to protect the guilty party.
5. Instead of thanking the whistle-blower, Jimmy Wales replied to him with this shocking remark, "...your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer."
6. No wonder the Wikimedia Foundation is falling far short of its fundraising objectives this year. Its management is too infiltrated with bankrupt ethics, which thoughtful people of conscience wouldn't dream of supporting financially.
2. Both the WMF and the for-profit enterprise Wikia, Inc. have personnel who serve on the Boards of both organizations. Wikia, Inc. -- a company financed with $14 million in venture capital -- has filed Form 990 documents with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that maintain there are no conflicts of interest in the cross-management of the two organizations.
3. However, it was revealed this week that Wikia, Inc. was hosting a secret mailing list comprised exclusively of hand-picked Wikipedia administrators and certain representatives of the Foundation, including Wikipedia co-founder himself, Jimmy Wales.
4. This mailing list's secret activity centered on discussion of the identities and even IP addresses of various "questionable" contributors to the Wikipedia encyclopedia, in order to build "wiki sleuthing" cases against said contributors. This past week, the list's spurious findings prompted the indefinite blocking of a long-standing valuable contributor to Wikipedia's pages. When evidence of this list was exposed by a whistle-blower (one having a long record of writing "featured articles" on Wikipedia), that evidence was repeatedly suppressed or erased by a senior staff member of the WMF. Days later, the cited ownership of the secret list was even altered, to protect the guilty party.
5. Instead of thanking the whistle-blower, Jimmy Wales replied to him with this shocking remark, "...your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer."
6. No wonder the Wikimedia Foundation is falling far short of its fundraising objectives this year. Its management is too infiltrated with bankrupt ethics, which thoughtful people of conscience wouldn't dream of supporting financially.
Please. Your efforts are needed. Now is the time to bring the corruption to a head in the court of public opinion. I am confident that a concerted letter-writing campaign at this time -- in the United States, in Canada, in the U.K., in Australia, and elsewhere (even Iowa) -- will have a palpable impact. Phrased in the above terms, any reader with an IQ of at least 105 will understand the core problem with Wikipedia.
I pledge that I will write TONIGHT to four local and regional newspapers, and that I will contact my U.S. Senators and my state and federal Congresspersons. Will you pledge in kind?
Greg
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 12:31pm)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 26th November 2007, 5:58pm)
QUOTE(MrM @ Mon 26th November 2007, 10:35am)
Giano certainly would not be made to suffer any damages, as it would be just about impossible for Durova to show that he lost any income based on the reposting of an email (he doesn't quite have the standing to go publishing a book of his emails).
I'm certain all the copyright business is really just being framed in the context of DMCA takedown requests, which gives the Foundation people a handy pretext for removing the text wherever they find it.
Right. They will remove things as it suits them. Giano's rights with respect to GNU may have some rule oriented basis, but they apply rules haphazardly anyways.
Off of the "proposed decisions" page of the Arb-com case (yes they're already voting....)
QUOTE
Private correspondence
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Support:
1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Support:
1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Hmm....Looks like Godwin is looking at this pretty closely too....
This has implications they haven't thought through. Not the least of which pertains to Sec. 230 immunity. We have the GC of WMF weighing in on a detail of a community process. This will undermine the supposed separation of WMF as "host" and community as "content provider."
It also will limit many matters that ArbCom decides upon and has it already has decided in the past. Will banning etc be retroactively cleared as a result?
Why aren't they even considering the application of "fair use" of such material, which is the usual basis of using such correspondence in journalistic and investigative contexts?
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 26th November 2007, 2:28pm)
This has implications they haven't thought through. Not the least of which pertains to Sec. 230 immunity. We have the GC of WMF weighing in on a detail of a community process. This will undermine the supposed separation of WMF as "host" and community as "content provider."
Even most IP lawyers wouldn't know how to ferret out the facts. Once thus ferreted, they are damning, but until then...
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 26th November 2007, 2:28pm)
It also will limit many matters that ArbCom decides upon and has it already has decided in the past. Will banning etc be retroactively cleared as a result?
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 26th November 2007, 2:28pm)
Why aren't they even considering the application of "fair use" of such material, which is the usual basis of using such correspondence in journalistic and investigative contexts?
No one will care about that. This isn't a copyright case. Those were motions taken to wipe down material, to save face.
Durova may have fallen on her sword, but it's not clear how much back-channel pressure was brought to bear.
There still remains the spectre of a cover-up, and more than a little residual suspicion that the case of User:!! was not a one-off event by one erratic admin operating entirely on her own in an unsupervised manner.
There still remains the spectre of a cover-up, and more than a little residual suspicion that the case of User:!! was not a one-off event by one erratic admin operating entirely on her own in an unsupervised manner.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 26th November 2007, 2:39pm)
more than a little residual suspicion that the case of User:!! was not a one-off event by one erratic admin operating entirely on her own in an unsupervised manner.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 26th November 2007, 3:12pm)
I pledge that I will write TONIGHT to four local and regional newspapers, and that I will contact my U.S. Senators and my state and federal Congresspersons. Will you pledge in kind?
For those of you who may need a little "boost" in helping to get the campaign out there:
A "Letters to the Editor" tool based on your ZIP code:
Democratic version
Republican version
A finder and e-mail form to write your US Senator, US Representative, and State elected officials is here.
If you wish to file a complaint with the IRS, that's a little more challenging, but the appropriate form may be completed here. I suggest you choose from "False documents" (for the incorrectly completed Form 990) and/or "Public corruption" (for using private donations to fund a secret mailing list on a conflicted for-profit website).
Keep in mind, we are not attempting to bring about an immediate injunction against the WMF, and that's why I'm not recommending that one attorney general or one particular tax auditor be contacted. We are trying to change the hearts and minds of the general public. It will only take a seed of doubt to get people talking about what happened this week at Wikipedia. I trust that everything else will fall into place once that is achieved.
Greg
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 26th November 2007, 9:52pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 26th November 2007, 3:12pm)
I pledge that I will write TONIGHT to four local and regional newspapers, and that I will contact my U.S. Senators and my state and federal Congresspersons. Will you pledge in kind?
For those of you who may need a little "boost" in helping to get the campaign out there:
A "Letters to the Editor" tool based on your ZIP code:
Democratic version
Republican version
A finder and e-mail form to write your US Senator, US Representative, and State elected officials is here.
If you wish to file a complaint with the IRS, that's a little more challenging, but the appropriate form may be completed here. I suggest you choose from "False documents" (for the incorrectly completed Form 990) and/or "Public corruption" (for using private donations to fund a secret mailing list on a conflicted for-profit website).
Keep in mind, we are not attempting to bring about an immediate injunction against the WMF, and that's why I'm not recommending that one attorney general or one particular tax auditor be contacted. We are trying to change the hearts and minds of the general public. It will only take a seed of doubt to get people talking about what happened this week at Wikipedia. I trust that everything else will fall into place once that is achieved.
Greg
Greg,
This is very important. I encourage everybody to do this.
I pledge to do this.
tfa
Off of Giano II's talkpage, an important detail :
So, it was not on an email list, but on a wikia site ....In other words, he's got ammo for when TSHTF....and if it's on a Wikia site, it's definitely GFDL, so all he had to do was to say who the original author was....
It's ain't over until it's over
(by the way, Giano saw your vid, DL...and I think that he liked it too, from his response....
QUOTE
Than you Utgard, can I just make it quite clear once and for all it was not an email it was a post. There is avery subtle difference which I am not going into right now. Giano (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As an aside- is the list under the GNU Free Documentation License as it seems to be, because there is a pic of the moose at the bottom of it? So all posts to it are licenced under the GNU- not a very subtle difference at all- unless you call the giant head of a moose subtle.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's just leave all the legal issues for a while and see what happens. Giano (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As an aside- is the list under the GNU Free Documentation License as it seems to be, because there is a pic of the moose at the bottom of it? So all posts to it are licenced under the GNU- not a very subtle difference at all- unless you call the giant head of a moose subtle.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's just leave all the legal issues for a while and see what happens. Giano (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
So, it was not on an email list, but on a wikia site ....In other words, he's got ammo for when TSHTF....and if it's on a Wikia site, it's definitely GFDL, so all he had to do was to say who the original author was....
It's ain't over until it's over
(by the way, Giano saw your vid, DL...and I think that he liked it too, from his response....
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 9:56pm)
I pledge to do this.
tfa
Done!
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 10:33pm)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 26th November 2007, 9:56pm)
I pledge to do this.
tfa
Done!
Given this discussion, it seems quite clear that the posted email was indeed GFDL and everybody knows it.
From Gianno :
QUOTE
A post to a mailing list published to the internet under by GNU Free Documentation License is firmly without copyright. Secondly, people would be better advised never to commit anything to paper or print which they would be ashamed for others to see. Especially unfounded libels. Giano (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Remember, Gianno never plays his full hand. I'm guessing that he's got a screenshot of this somewhere....at least, I hope he does!
They got bit in the ass by their own license. It serves 'em right!
If you care about the impropriety of Wikia, Inc. servers coordinating the efforts of a secret group of Wikipedia admins to spy on "suspicious" editors...
I hope that you will "Digg" this link ! !
I hope that you will "Digg" this link ! !
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.