Anthony writes:
I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke the license...
Reread section 9.
Section 9 doesn't provide for a licensor to revoke, willynilly, the GFDL licenses for a particular user. What it does do is provide for automatic termination in the event that the licensed material is (inter alia) distributed in some way other provided for by the GFDL, as well as further providing for the copyright holder to expressly terminate the license if the copyrighted work continues to be distributed in ways not allowed for under the GFDL.
So, in what ways are the dumps inherently violative of the GFDL? And did this violation only just now come to your attention? And, if so, what does it matter whether license harmonization occurs or not, since even if it doesn't occur the dumps will continue to be distributing GFDL content?
This begins to look stranger and stranger.
--Mike
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Section 9 doesn't provide for a licensor to revoke, willynilly, the GFDL licenses for a particular user. What it does do is provide for automatic termination in the event that the licensed material is (inter alia) distributed in some way other provided for by the GFDL, as well as further providing for the copyright holder to expressly terminate the license if the copyrighted work continues to be distributed in ways not allowed for under the GFDL
So, in what ways are the dumps inherently violative of the GFDL?
Geez, in what way do they even come close to complying with them? Where's the section entitled history? Where's the title page?
And did this violation only just now come to your attention?
No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just introduced in GFDL 1.3.
And, if so, what does it matter whether license harmonization occurs or not, since even if it doesn't occur the dumps will continue to be distributing GFDL content?
I believe that switching from GFDL to CC-BY-SA will serve to increase the distribution of my copyrighted content without attribution.
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just introduced in GFDL 1.3.
Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia project, but firstly (a) ban him in perpetuity from all Wikimedia projects, to ensure against further violations or attempts to entrap us with such.
- d.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:44 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just introduced in GFDL 1.3.
Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia project, but firstly (a) ban him in perpetuity from all Wikimedia projects, to ensure against further violations or attempts to entrap us with such.
Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last name from all Wikimedia projects.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org