On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/5/29 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence
that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever.
You haven't ditched the GFDL though. In fact, the success of your
"relicensing" relies on the claim that you're following it.
Strangely no since you would have an awfully hard time trying to
convince a court that by submitting content to wikipedia you were not
giving it permission to use that content in the way content is
typically used on wikipedia sites. The upshot of this is while the
content may be under the GFDL as far as third parties are concerned
the foundation effectively has a non exclusive license to use the
stuff on it's wikipedia website.
I'm not sure where you get the "no" from. The relicensing was done for the
sake of third parties, not for "Wikipedia sites".
Thus the content can be switched to CC-BY-SA without
the foundation
haveing to have followed the terms of the GFDL except those required
to allow the content to be used under CC-BY-SA (basically user names)
It can be relicensed under CC-BY-SA by the copyright holders, sure. But you
seem to be implying something more than that. I'm not sure what, though.