On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
There is a difference here between simply hosting
your content,
hosting it with modifications, copying it to a different part of
Wikipedia, and copying it to an entirely different project. The first
is pretty obviously legal. The second is more questionable, and you
could argue that you have a right to revoke the permission (certainly
upon any violation of the GFDL which is ongoing). The last two are
even more legally shaky, but there are plenty of arguments that it is
legal even outside the GFDL.
Whether these licenses may be revoked is a dubious prospect. If someone
revokes the GFDL that he has granted to Wikipedia what is the effect on
the downstream user who has himself copied the material based on the
licensing provisions that he found in Wikipedia, and which were
perfectly valid at the time? Anything but irrevocable licenses could
lead to serious absurdities.
Ec
Read clause 9 of the GFDL: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this
License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute
the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights
under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or
rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses
terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
Wikimedia distributes the Document other than as expressly provided
for under the GFDL, and has already had its rights under the GFDL
terminated.
Wikipedia's use of the GFDL is already absurd. If you want to make
any sense of things you have to look beyond the GFDL.
Anthony