On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, maybe
there is no clear "all text" statement that can be made
here, as some of it must be distributed using the terms of the
original contributor, of which version 1.2 may be the chosen version
for display on wikipedia but version 1.1 should be available for
people who choose to if the text derived from before June 2003.
It is available under 1.1, but Wikipedia has no obligation to say so.
Anyone seriously challenging this may think otherwise and use the lack
of transparency in this part as a negative factor. Particularly if the
challenge related to the "or later" clauses which are completely
unique to Free Software licenses and hence have not been interpreted
by a court of law AFAIK so far. "Or later" does not imply "only 'later
or later' ".
I
still do not see how it is up to wikipedia to be allowed to specify
the base version which may be chosen by users when contributors in the
past had a wider range of possible licenses to choose from for the
same content. Content providers of free material should not reduce the
rights of consumers, or attempt to hide the fact that they are
reducing their rights IMO.
Wikipedia is not a content provider, it is a content user. The content
is provided by the contributors, and they can release it under
whatever licenses they please as long as one of them is the license
required by Wikipedia (they can choose not to release it under that
license, but then it cannot be posted to Wikipedia). Wikipedia has
every right to specify what content can be used on Wikipedia - that is
all it is doing.
I don't see how they are able to change their agreement to license
content under version 1.1 or later to make it 1.2 or later without
consulting the copyright owners to see whether they agree that the
redistribution is not limiting the rights of users who want to use it
under version 1.1 for whatever reason they see fit. If wikipedia stuck
with a constant "vX.Y or later" it would be much simpler. Changing the
base version "just because" is never a good reason with legal issues.
Peter