Thomas Dalton writes:
I regard this
as essentially a trivial problem. You could put it on
the front page of each language's Wikipedia, for example. Those who
never see the Project front pages might not see such a notice -- but
they probably don't know we're having a fundraiser, either.
What does a fundraiser have to do with it? Are you suggesting that
people that don't donate don't deserve to have their legal rights
respected?
Of course not. I'm suggesting that the percentage of people who care
about GFDL's specifics but who would miss a general announcement is
very small.
It would be very strange for anyone to make the argument that I, a
lawyer whose career has mostly centered on preserving the rights of
people who normally can't pay for their own lawyers, would argue that
non-donaters don't deserve their legal rights. You must have a very
odd impression of me. Are you familiar with my work?
Furthermore,
I'm willing to bet that the set of contributors who both
(a) insist on an old version of GFDL and (b) care about it enough to
remove content if migration happens, and (c) wouldn't hear about the
migration is a very, very, small set of contributors.
It only takes one.
It only takes one to do what, exactly? To make a fuss? We already
have people who make fusses over all sorts of things. We generally try
to accommodate complaints if they're reasonable. But if someone meets
criteria (a), (b), and (c) above, then, by definition, they wouldn't
make a fuss (because of (c)). If they learned about the migration
later, why, then, we'd address their concerns and likely remove their
content accordingly.
Credit card companies have a list of people they need
to notify. We
don't.
Except that you seem to be saying we do. Specifically, some people
seem to be saying we (a) do have a large (impossible!) number of
people to notify, and (b) we can't possibly notify them in a general
way but must seek individual contact with them instead.
You've yet to describe a practical way of removing
content.
I can think of a couple of ways. So can you, I'm willing to bet. I
leave this as an exercise for the reader. (Alternatively, other folks
can chime in here.)
You're the lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the law
doesn't care what our
primary purpose is. We still have to obey it, even if it goes against
what we're trying to do.
I'm not advising anyone not to obey the law. As a lawyer for the
Foundation, my job is partly to help the Foundation and the Projects
achieve their primary purposes, and to suggest ways of doing so that
don't create legal problems. I doubt anything I've suggested here will
get anyone sent to jail or anyone sued.
--Mike