[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

[Robert Rohde]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Anthony writes:
>>>
>>> > Which part is unclear?  The dumps contain my copyrighted work.  You
>>> > have no
>>> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
>>> > the
>>> > GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over
>>> > 30 days
>>> > ago in an email to you).
>>>
>>> It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke the
>>> GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law.  I'm unclear as
>>> to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
>>>
>>
>> I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunately it's irrelevant.
>> Just reread section 9 of the GFDL.  I find it rather astounding that you
>> don't know what it says.
>>
>
> Especially since it was one of the major changes (probably the second
> biggest) to GFDL 1.3.  Seriously, how could you not be familiar with that
> change?

The dump content is still handled under GFDL 1.2 as no migration has
been asserted.  Hence the new clauses about notification and time
limits aren't (yet) relevant.

I concur though that even under GFDL 1.2 many of the dumps fail to
comply with the license terms.

-Robert Rohde