[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Robert Horning]

Mike Godwin wrote:
> damaging to plaintiffs as well as to defendants.
>
> Let's boil this down to what the real argument is:
>
> 1) It would be wrong to relicense GFDL content on Wikipedia to a new  
> GFDL that's like CC-BY-SA.
> 2) Allowing those who object to the content would do no good because  
> it's impossible.
> 3) Therefore, people will sue us because they object to the new license.
> 4) What will they sue for?  Damages (unclear how to calculate those,  
> since there's no market value or lost profit calculation that's  
> obvious, and since the content isn't registered, which is a  
> requirement for statutory damages), plus removal of the content.
>
>   
> --Mike
>
>   

BTW, who says that parts of Wikipedia haven't been registered with 
national copyright registration agencies (like the Library of 
Congress)?  I certainly wouldn't want to make that assumption up out of 
whole cloth without checking first.  I know for a fact that some 
Wikimedia content (Wikibooks to be specific) has been sent to national 
registration bodies.  We also don't need to notify the WMF is such a 
registration occurs.

And I think I could come up with a market value of some of this content 
vs. its diminished value due to ignoring GFDL requirements.  That it 
wouldn't be easy is true, but it is not wise to assume no value to this 
content.

-- Robert Horning