Peter P. wrote:

> I am under the impression that Answers.com is an ad-serving wrapper
> script that simply serves Wikipedia articles (possibly cached)
> surrounded by copious ads. Shouldn't there be a not-for-profit
> publication clause in the Wikipedia content license information ? 

I don't know whether there should be, but there appears to not be. From the
license <http://tinyurl.com/cmb7c>:

2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially
or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and
the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are
reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever
to those of this License.


However, I didn't find the copyright and license links in the Wikipedia
section on Answers.com. This may be a violation of the license.

Then there's the partnership between Wikipedia and Answers.com:
<http://tinyurl.com/3y29kf>

> Oddly enough, Wikipedia defines Answers.com as doing exactly what I said it 
> does...
> 
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers.com

Try this: <http://www.answers.com/answers.com> :)

> Huh ? I.o.w., what are the implications for free/open content, and how
> could this be controlled (obviously the target site uses the content to
> sell advertising and adds no value to it - excepting for the provision
> of bandwidth).

They do seem to add value: content from other sources regarding the same
term.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist