Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52 - Wikimedia-l

26 Apr 2011


      ...

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:46:41 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
       foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 4DB66A51.8090209@telus.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Assuming that your analysis is perfectly correct what then? Informal
opinions from lawyers are still nothing more than opinions. Even a fully
researched legal opinion won't help much; that kind of legal research
may be too subtle for the average Wikipedian's simplistic conception of
law.  The court's opinion is the only one that matters, and even then
only in that court's country.
Who is going to test the law? Who is going to bear the expense of taking
all this to court when the damages are so very small?  What is the
pragmatic solution?
Ray
I don’t know but I only see two possibilities:
A) We find a way to enforce the re-licensing of the derivative works under
the same license.
B) We change the license to a none-commercial one and issue a commercial
license only to WMF.
I don’t feel very happy by releasing my works under a free license if in
practice everybody can reuse my work and exploit it in under a privative
license.