In the October issue of Scientific American, in an article for the regular section of "Mathematical Games", the famous mathematician signing Juan MR Parrondo. Called my attention to a photo published extracted from the English Wikipedia, in the foot puts.
This photo, as most graduates in the Wikipedia is GFDL. In this license, which is similar to the GPL requires that if you are using the image work, such work must also be licensed under the GFDL.
That's the theory and then there is the practice of law enforcement in terms of the licenses. I wonder what should happen at this point.
1. Parrondo article automatically becomes GFDL although he does not want to have used the license, so if I am going to shoot it here below and we will change some expressions that do not like, even put another photo.
2. The journal should be seized from newsstands to be infringing the license.
3. Parrondo Simply post your item is GFDL, regardless of copyright text that appears in the magazine.
4. All journal becomes GFDL.
5. The magazine must pay compensation to the wikipedia for fraudulent use of the image.
6. I really use is correct because the statement is sufficient, and the item can not be considered fraudulent use.
7. The magazine must pay compensation to the true author.
8. The magazine must pay compensation to the true author, if you know who he is, but only a nick in Wikipedia, so that someone would have first claim authorship by judicial means.
....
I can think of many more possibilities, but I have no means clear which is good, I guess it takes a little jurisprudence on the subject, or there is and I do not know.
Perhaps these questions have to do to me in five years, where this is already outdated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment