On 25/11/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: The licence is a defence. Plaintiff: "Defendant is using my copyright content unlicensed." Defendant: "Plaintiff licensed it under GFDL 1.2 Or Later, and I'm using it per GFDL 4.7, which is covered by Plaintiff's release." Plaintiff: "But 4.7's not in the same spirit as 1.2!" I can't see this flying. They'd need to bring an action against the FSF and have it stick before they could put those reusing under an "or later" provision in serious danger for doing so in good faith. I would think. (not a lawyer, much less a US lawyer, but have been around this stuff way too long; correction welcomed from those who are) - d.

On Nov 25, 2007 2:33 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: But...it's a strawman. A better response would be "No I didn't license it under GFDL 1.2 Or Later; furthermore, even if I did, I retract it."

On Nov 25, 2007 3:45 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's not what it says right above the "Submit" button. Above the "Save Page" button, on the English Wikipedia, it currently says: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." Then, at the bottom of the page it says "^ GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts." And it hasn't always said this. I certainly would not stipulate that clicking on such a button constitutes agreeing to a license. And actually, I don't recall ever having clicked on a button with such a text on that page, though it might be possible for you to gather records showing I had done so. As for "or later" clauses being found completely invalid, regardless of spirit, that's not necessary. The GFDL license itself defines what "or later" means - "If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." The term "has been published" is sufficiently ambiguous that one could argue it only includes versions published at the time of the agreement, that would certainly make sense. Furthermore, the license implies that the "or later version" language should be specified in the Document itself, not agreed to by some clickthrough license. As for retracting the GFDL, first of all, rights under the GFDL are automatically revoked if "Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document" is made. Surely it could be shown that the WMF at one point made a copy or distribution outside the terms of the GFDL. The article-only dumps don't comply with the GFDL, do they? Secondly, there is a significant question as to whether the GFDL is a contract or a waiver. If it is a waiver, it can be withdrawn at any time. If it is a contract, then there must be consideration, and any unconscionable parts would be void. Entering irrevocably into a contract which can be changed by a third party at any time with no possibility to opt-out and which does not require future contracts to be in the same spirit of the original contract is surely unconscionable. In the end, I seriously doubt a court would find that by clicking on a button that says "Save Page" you have irrevocably agreed to do anything the FSF ever decides to say you've done. Maybe they'll deny punitive or even actual damages for past actions as long as the WMF is acting in good faith (*), but I don't see how they could allow the WMF to do anything it wants in the future simply because you clicked on some button ten years ago when the GFDL was completely different. (*) Although, in a real world situation most likely a DMCA takedown notice would come first, which would make it much harder to claim that you weren't aware of the license revocation.

On Nov 25, 2007 6:24 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: It didn't always say Version 1.2, and it didn't always say "or any later version". Anyway, I expect your arguments to be accurate. If it doesn't say something "right above the submit button", but instead says it in a footnote, don't say it says it "right above the submit button". If it's no big deal, there's no need to exaggerate. That's probably true to some extent, although I'd say there is an implicit license given to the WMF when hitting submit. I'd say that implicit license is only valid if the WMF doesn't significantly alter what it's doing, though, and that it can be revoked at any time. Well, that's not true, as I can send a POST request to the server in many ways, but that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at the fact that I don't know for sure if the text read that 1.2 or any later version nonsense last time I hit submit. But for the purposes of argument, let's assume it did, and that the WMF can show that it did. I've never heard that particular clause interpreted before, but "has been published" is what it says, and it's hard for me to see how it can be interpreted as "will be published in the future". It's only a redundant in certain instances. If I release something under GFDL 1.1 or any later version, it's not redundant. In this particular hypothetical situation the defendant is the WMF, isn't it? If not, then, well, the whole part about "clicking on submit" is going to be a whole lot tougher, since presumably only the WMF and myself are parties to that agreement. Right, this is an additional argument, though. The current version article only dumps. Do they contain the GFDL? Do they have a compliant section entitled history? Do they even list all the authors, anywhere? Sorry, I thought you were arguing that the future licenses don't even have to be in the same spirit. By the way, once you've shown all of this, and that the WMF has received a license under the GFDL 4.7 (which didn't even exist at the time of the agreement), that this can't be revoked, and that it hasn't automatically been terminated, now the burden is on you to show that you're actually in compliance with the license.

On Nov 27, 2007 5:46 PM, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote: The GPL and GFDL are different licenses, and the requirement to provide a transparent copy (which would be analogous to the GPL requirement to provide source) is not the same as the requirement to list authors in the section entitled history. I don't think it's GPL compliant to provide a GPL program in binary form without at least listing the authors somewhere. I'm not sure if the GPL requires you to include a copy of the license or not. That'd be another problem. I wasn't sure if it was in the article only dump, which is why I asked, but I guess it is.