[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Takedown Notice was Copyright violation

Alex wrote:
>These are both good suggestions, it is more accurate 
>to say "open content" than free (implying PD) and the 
>link back is giving someone an easy way to comply with 
>the GFDL, and very specific directions on how to do it.

While "open content' does include things like the GNU FDL it also includes 
non-free licenses (like the OPL with its two options exercised or even the 
FDL with invariant sections). So it would be more correct to say "free 
content" and have that be a link to the copyright page. 

>Of course the question of sending out these notices 
>needs to be vetted by Wikimedia as it would involve 
>some "corporate" action as it would be invoking the 
>name of Wikimedia. 

Yeah. 

To Jimbo: Why has it been taking so long to set-up a Wikimedia board of 
directors and coporate officers? Wikimedia /needs/ such a structure in order 
to be a viable coporation and many people have volunteered to either help 
with the nuts and bolts and/or perform the the coporate roles. 

As it is none of us have official roles and thus have no authority to do 
things like write a take-down notice for Wikipedia content we didn't 
significantly contribute to. There also has been a good deal of talk about 
setting-up Wikipedia legal entities in other nations. If we had an effective  
Wikimedia Foundation, then I imagine that there would be less of a need for 
that. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)