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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
> 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
> 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
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.
foundation-l mailing list