From: "Dante Alighieri" dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com ...
Since the mailing list is archived on the 'pedia does that mean that by writing this email I'm releasing its contents under the GDFL?
Either way, the status of this list should probably be more explicit both during list sign-up and in the monthly password reminder.
...
Dante Alighieri
Just wanted to point out that my argumentation about the status of archives on Wikipedia is to show that the issue is not really clear. The point is not to convince anyone either way. The fact is that you can sign up on the mailing list without logging onto Wikipedia so there probably is no GFDL agreement there, that brings into question that status of archives on Wikipedia and what the GFDL license really means in a wiki content.
As far as I know there is no jursidprudence on such a point of law so there is really nothing to guide one in these obscure area of cyberlaw.
The point is that you can't always ask lawyers to fix your problems after the fact. Sometimes things don't make much sense and lawyers have a duty to their clients to either make things sound very simple or incredibly complex and confusing (depending which side they are on in the argument).
The Wikilists are probably not GFDL. Trying to make part of them GFDL now is not going to solve any problem, is it? You can't force people who have posted in the past to release their material GFDL after the fact and what is really the point of that? There is not really much copyright protection of mailing list contents, they can be quoted, cited and the ideas therein expressed are covered either by fair use or by the doctrine that ideas are not covered by copyright (expressed in US law in the copyright act at sec. 102(b): (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Alex756