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

[Brian]

And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of
dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and
what everyone ignores.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
You have successfully failed!