[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Robert Horning]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>   
>> en.wikibooks that I haven't touched at least on some level.  Mind you,
>> I'm not trying to say I'm going to be a PITA on this, but a presumption
>> that existing copyright claims are irrelevant and can be effectively
>> ignored is going to be something tough to accomplish and IMHO a legal
>> nightmare.  I know for a fact that I am not alone here on this
>> declaration of copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects.
>>     
>
>
> Then why did you hit "submit" each time?
>   
Are you asking why I hit "submit" when the presumption was that I could 
assert copyright on my contributions.... or that somehow what I added to 
Wikimedia projects was a free gift to the WMF for them to assert 
copyright over and set terms of that copyright however the WMF board of 
trustees saw fit?

I don't understand this at all or what you mean here.
>
>   
>> My contributions have been under the terms of the GFDL, and whatever the
>> FSF says is the "or later version" I will respect in terms of fitting to
>> the fine points of the GFDL.  There is no way I can "take the license
>> away" at this point, but I certainly am going to expect that the terms
>> of the GFDL are followed on my contributions.
>>     
>
>
> I suspect I've lost track of the particular hypothetical offence you
> are speaking of. A violation of your copyright that you'll win even if
> the reuser points to "or later version"? If it's not a future version
> of the GFDL, then "or later version" can't possibly apply.
>
>
> - d.
>   

I suppose I have.  What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was 
not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting 
that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply 
ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default 
license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA.  We are 
talking in circles here, but I'm pointing out that the GFDL is what it 
is.  I have not agreed to have my contributions released under any other 
license other than the GFDL, and that is all I'm asserting.  The flame 
is coming from the presumption that I am insisting on maintaining 
everything under the terms of the GFDL v 1.2, and that is not what I'm 
saying.  I'm simply declaring in a public forum that I am asserting my 
copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects, and insisting that 
they remain under the terms of the GFDL.... nothing more or less than 
simply this.  The rest is reaction to this bold statement, as if the 
GFDL doesn't matter at all.

-- Robert Horning