On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: > > 2009/2/7 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: > > >> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You > >> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count. > > > There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that > > licensing updates that do not fundamentally alter the spirit of the > > license and that are permitted through the license itself are legally > > valid in all jurisdictions." (the FAQ) I don't hold much stock by > > "belief", I'd rather here from somebody that actually knows about each > > jurisdiction (at least, the ones where we have a major presence, every > > single one would be impractical). > > > Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a > reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to > believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being > unable to prove a negative. Once a prima facie case for copyright infringement has been proven, the burden of proof is on the defense to show they have a valid license. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
