[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52

[Joan Goma]

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:46:41 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4DB66A51.8090209 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Assuming that your analysis is perfectly correct what then? Informal
> opinions from lawyers are still nothing more than opinions. Even a fully
> researched legal opinion won't help much; that kind of legal research
> may be too subtle for the average Wikipedian's simplistic conception of
> law.  The court's opinion is the only one that matters, and even then
> only in that court's country.
>
> Who is going to test the law? Who is going to bear the expense of taking
> all this to court when the damages are so very small?  What is the
> pragmatic solution?
>
> Ray
>
>
I don’t know but I only see two possibilities:

A) We find a way to enforce the re-licensing of the derivative works under
the same license.

B) We change the license to a none-commercial one and issue a commercial
license only to WMF.

I don’t feel very happy by releasing my works under a free license if in
practice everybody can reuse my work and exploit it in under a privative
license.