[Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

[geni]

2009/5/29 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> My comment was that "the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the claim
> that you're following it".  In other words, the only reason you claim to be
> able to relicense content under CC-BY-SA is because you claim the GFDL
> allows you to do that (it doesn't actually say that this can be done, but
> apparently you claim that "republish" means the same as "relicense").

The GFDL allows the switch. Attempting to build a case around the
meaning of "republish" in the context is extremely unlikely to be
successful.

However it is legally very questionable if there is any requirement
for the GFDL to be followed on the wikimedia websites since they can
operate under their defacto non exclusive license to use the material.
In other words there foundation has the right to host the material
under the GFDL and now CC-BY-SA-3.0 but it is highly questionable if
that is the only way it has the right to host it.

-- 
geni