[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

Delirium delirium at hackish.org
Fri Jan 23 17:39:19 UTC 2009

Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> That said, the GFDL requires authors to be listed in "the section
>>> entitled
>>> History", and it clearly states that a "section "Entitled XYZ" means
>>> a named
>>> subunit of the Document..."
>> So is current Wikipedia practice consistent with the GFDL or not?
> I believe that Wikipedia practice is not consistent with the GFDL.  That's
> why I notified you that the WMF's right to use my content under the GFDL has
> been permanently revoked.

Considering that Wikipedia practice has not changed since you made those 
edits, why did you make them in the first place, only to "revoke" them 
later? Do you have *any* purpose in participating in this project, and 
this mailing list discussion, at all, besides trolling? Did you make 
your edits in bad faith solely to give yourself an alleged cause of action?

If you'd like to sue the Wikimedia Foundation, why didn't you: 1) do so 
years ago, when the alleged wrong transpired; and 2) stop harrassing the 
mailing list of a project whose aims you clearly oppose and have no 
interest in participating in.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list