On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/5/29 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to > >> keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever. > > > > > > You haven't ditched the GFDL though. In fact, the success of your > > "relicensing" relies on the claim that you're following it. > > Strangely no since you would have an awfully hard time trying to > convince a court that by submitting content to wikipedia you were not > giving it permission to use that content in the way content is > typically used on wikipedia sites. The upshot of this is while the > content may be under the GFDL as far as third parties are concerned > the foundation effectively has a non exclusive license to use the > stuff on it's wikipedia website.
I'm not sure where you get the "no" from. The relicensing was done for the sake of third parties, not for "Wikipedia sites". > Thus the content can be switched to CC-BY-SA without the foundation > haveing to have followed the terms of the GFDL except those required > to allow the content to be used under CC-BY-SA (basically user names) It can be relicensed under CC-BY-SA by the copyright holders, sure. But you seem to be implying something more than that. I'm not sure what, though. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
