2009/5/29 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
My comment was that "the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the claim that you're following it". In other words, the only reason you claim to be able to relicense content under CC-BY-SA is because you claim the GFDL allows you to do that (it doesn't actually say that this can be done, but apparently you claim that "republish" means the same as "relicense").
The GFDL allows the switch. Attempting to build a case around the meaning of "republish" in the context is extremely unlikely to be successful.
However it is legally very questionable if there is any requirement for the GFDL to be followed on the wikimedia websites since they can operate under their defacto non exclusive license to use the material. In other words there foundation has the right to host the material under the GFDL and now CC-BY-SA-3.0 but it is highly questionable if that is the only way it has the right to host it.