Anthony writes:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke the GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
What may have confused you, counselor, is that I expressed a willingness to tolerate, to the degree it's not unduly disruptive, those few editors who want to remove all content they have generated, no matter how teensy. But this was not based on a perception that GFDL is revocable. It was simply a political judgment that WMF might not choose to challenge someone who decided to take all his (freely licensed) marbles and go home. We have larger goals than that.
--Mike
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke the GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. Just reread section 9 of the GFDL. I find it rather astounding that you don't know what it says.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke the GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. Just reread section 9 of the GFDL. I find it rather astounding that you don't know what it says.
Especially since it was one of the major changes (probably the second biggest) to GFDL 1.3. Seriously, how could you not be familiar with that change?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke the GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. Just reread section 9 of the GFDL. I find it rather astounding that you don't know what it says.
Especially since it was one of the major changes (probably the second biggest) to GFDL 1.3. Seriously, how could you not be familiar with that change?
The dump content is still handled under GFDL 1.2 as no migration has been asserted. Hence the new clauses about notification and time limits aren't (yet) relevant.
I concur though that even under GFDL 1.2 many of the dumps fail to comply with the license terms.
-Robert Rohde
And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and what everyone ignores.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Anthony writes:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke the GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. Just reread section 9 of the GFDL. I find it rather astounding that you don't know what it says.
Especially since it was one of the major changes (probably the second biggest) to GFDL 1.3. Seriously, how could you not be familiar with that change?
The dump content is still handled under GFDL 1.2 as no migration has been asserted. Hence the new clauses about notification and time limits aren't (yet) relevant.
I concur though that even under GFDL 1.2 many of the dumps fail to comply with the license terms.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian wrote:
And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and what everyone ignores.
Not to dismiss the importance of dumps, certainly, but the reference to "data" reflects an implicit limitation of the comment to bulk reuse. Part of the issue here, as part of the free culture movement, is ensuring that people can use and remix smaller parts. I would venture that most people who reuse content from Wikimedia projects never go near the dumps and wouldn't know what to do with them. We don't want to ignore use of the database for mirrors or research, but it's only part of the picture.
--Michael Snow
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org