[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Mike Godwin]

Thomas Dalton writes:

>>  I regard this as essentially a trivial problem. You could put it on
>> the front page of each language's Wikipedia, for example.  Those who
>> never see the Project front pages might not see such a notice -- but
>> they probably don't know we're having a fundraiser, either.
>
> What does a fundraiser have to do with it? Are you suggesting that
> people that don't donate don't deserve to have their legal rights
> respected?

Of course not. I'm suggesting that the percentage of people who care  
about GFDL's specifics but who would miss a general announcement is  
very small.

It would be very strange for anyone to make the argument that I, a  
lawyer whose career has mostly centered on preserving the rights of  
people who normally can't pay for their own lawyers, would argue that  
non-donaters don't deserve their legal rights. You must have a very  
odd impression of me. Are you familiar with my work?

>> Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that the set of contributors who both
>> (a) insist on an old version of GFDL and (b) care about it enough to
>> remove content if migration happens, and (c) wouldn't hear about the
>> migration is a very, very, small set of contributors.
>
> It only takes one.

It only takes one to do what, exactly?  To make a fuss?  We already  
have people who make fusses over all sorts of things. We generally try  
to accommodate complaints if they're reasonable.  But if someone meets  
criteria (a), (b), and (c) above, then, by definition, they wouldn't  
make a fuss (because of (c)).  If they learned about the migration  
later, why, then, we'd address their concerns and likely remove their  
content accordingly.

>  Credit card companies have a list of people they need to notify. We
> don't.

Except that you seem to be saying we do.  Specifically, some people  
seem to be saying we (a) do have a large (impossible!) number of  
people to notify, and (b) we can't possibly notify them in a general  
way but must seek individual contact with them instead.

> You've yet to describe a practical way of removing content.

I can think of a couple of ways.  So can you, I'm willing to bet.  I  
leave this as an exercise for the reader. (Alternatively, other folks  
can chime in here.)

> You're the lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the law doesn't care what our
> primary purpose is. We still have to obey it, even if it goes against
> what we're trying to do.

I'm not advising anyone not to obey the law.  As a lawyer for the  
Foundation, my job is partly to help the Foundation and the Projects  
achieve their primary purposes, and to suggest ways of doing so that  
don't create legal problems. I doubt anything I've suggested here will  
get anyone sent to jail or anyone sued.


--Mike