Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo
What are the potential consequences of disregarding the license policy? I can't think of a way that this license policy could protect anyone from harm. Right now I don't see any reason to lose sleep over this, but I am willing to be enlightened.
If the license issue is a real issue, then I would advocate starting a new wiki.
|
As noted above, there's no practical likelihood of legal action. (Yes, it's probably civil copyright infringement—but who would sue?) However, because the content would be GFDL-contaminated, you wouldn't be able to adapt or re-use it on sites like Wikipedia where copyright is rigourously enforced.
The whole Wikipedia thing revolves around the idea that FIRSTWiki's better articles could serve as the basis for a Wikipedia treatment of the subject—but since Wikipedia won't let you cite another wiki, only adapt or import its content under licence, it's worth paying attention to the licence terms. Ignoring the licence basically closes that door for future use of all existing articles.
In terms of harm, the harm is merely material (in that someone is being deprived of a copyright that they did not assign), however it isn't exactly a best practice or a good example to set. Though my feelings on the matter are complicated, I would say that it's one thing to break the law out of expediency
on your own behalf or out of principle (those can be relatively easy to justify, under some circumstances), it's a different matter to subject all future editors to the ramifications of your choice. (Once they find out, they're confronted with the choice: become complicit in the infringement, or curtail their contributions.)