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