2009/1/8 Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu>: > Another question: Given the WMF admission in the FAQ that the GFDL has * > never* been followed in re-use of Wikipedia content due to the insane > difficulty of doing so, and given its rampant "illegal" re-use on the web, > and the WMF's ignoring this illegal re-use for years on end, what chance is > there that a court of law would find that the GFDL actually applies to this > content were someone to sue a re-user? > > Isn't it true that the efforts to force re-users to appropriately atrribute > the content have not actually asked them to follow the letter of the GFDL? > > Is a license that is never enforced truly a license, in the legal sense?
The license is between the author and the re-user, the fact that the WMF has tolerated it being violated is irrelevant. You can lose a trademark by not defending it, but I don't think the same applies to copyrights, so unless the individual owner can be shown to have said it was all right not to follow the license to the letter, I don't see why they can't sue. (IANAL, YMMV, BBQ) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
