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

geni geniice at gmail.com
Sat May 30 01:26:07 UTC 2009

2009/5/30 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> Once you've established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the
> burden of proof is on the defense to show that they have a valid license.
> The copyright holder doesn't have to build any case at all.  The burden of
> proof is on the reuser to show that "republish" means "relicense".

Copyright is civil law. It's balance of probability and all that. And
due to the way wikimedia sites function switching the license tags
will effectively republish the material.

> I never claimed the GFDL does have to be followed on the wikimedia
> websites.  In fact, considering that I claimed that the WMF never has
> followed the GFDL, I pretty much implied the opposite.
> Again, my comment was that "the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the
> claim that you're following [the GFDL]".  A defacto non-exclusive license to
> use the material is not a defacto non-exclusive license to relicence the
> material under CC-BY-SA.
> You even say as much yourself when you say "The GFDL allows the switch."
> Your claim is that the GFDL allows it, not that a defacto non-exclusive
> license allows it.

The material has been released under the GFDL nothing wikimedia can do
can change that. Therefor it can be switched to CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Really Anthony even by your standards that is a truly pathetic piece of FUD.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list