Thomas Dalton writes:
If the contributions in question are extensive, that
rewriting whole articles - ie. we lose enormous amounts of content.
I think this problem is overstated. Not all edits are additions of
Like I've said before, it only takes one.
I think running a project in fear of the one case where someone
decides to impose massive litigation costs on us is probably not
optimal decision-making strategy. There is so much we already do that
poses greater risks of litigation that the migration would that I
can't take seriously the proposition that a migration to new GFDL
significant new problems.
So we can be reasonably confident about winning any
such cases. Are
you equally confident about being able to win full legal costs?
That's not how legal risk assessment works.
An American court would enforce a foreign law that
doesn't exist in
the US? Maybe. I have very little experience of the American legal
system, however my experience of the US in general would suggest that
they wouldn't give a damn about foreign laws...
Yes, an American court might enforce a foreign judgment that would
have led to a different result if brought initially in an American
court. That's first-year civil procedure (i.e., an early lesson in
the basic training of every American law student).