On Nov 21, 2007 6:50 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 6:48 PM, Delphine Ménard
<notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<devil's advocate> What if the FSF
decided that the next version of
the GFDL stipulates "As of now, all works under the GFDL are sole
propriety of the FSF"? What would be the recourse of the authors who
have agreed to "any later versions"?</devil's advocate>
The existing content would still be available under the old terms,
_and_ under the new ones. So, effectively, new licenses can take away
restrictions, but can only add them with limited effectiveness (the
effectiveness would be derived from projects like Wikipedia adopting
the new version).
I'm trying to think this out as I type.
Ahhh, right, I forgot about "you don't take away the previous license" part.
:-)
But I believe your argument is flawed. New licenses can with as little
effectiveness take away or add restrictions. In the end, if the clause
"and any later version" is non-valid, then the whole adding or taking
away is non-valid (see Michael B.'s point on taking away restrictions
in the next email).
So I agree that my work is still under the license I chose to start
with, but in France, or Germany, I would probably have a case if I
said that I wanted my content to be taken away from a website which by
default adopted both licenses (the older and the newer one).
This does leave the question of the recourse I have if
some_evil_person decides to use the content I produced under the new
license and thus bar it from further modifications or on the contrary
gets rid of all restrictions. Doesn't it? I mean my work is then
spread out there under conditions I might not agree to.
As David Gerard puts it though, it's all small talk until someone goes
to court and wins. Interesting nonetheless.
Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to this address will get lost. Please use my
wikimedia.org address.