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

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.


So what is the probability that "republish" means "relicense".  And whose
intent should we consider?  Normally it would be the intent of the one
granting the license, but since the license wasn't even written at the time
that the person allegedly granted it...  I can't imagine a case even getting
to that point.