On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/5/29 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > > My comment was that "the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the > claim > > that you're following it". In other words, the only reason you claim to > be > > able to relicense content under CC-BY-SA is because you claim the GFDL > > allows you to do that (it doesn't actually say that this can be done, but > > apparently you claim that "republish" means the same as "relicense"). > > The GFDL allows the switch.
Thanks, that you are claiming that is exactly my point. > Attempting to build a case around the > meaning of "republish" in the context is extremely unlikely to be > successful. 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". > However it is legally very questionable if there is any requirement > for the GFDL to be followed on the wikimedia websites since they can > operate under their defacto non exclusive license to use the material. I never claimed the GFDL does have to be followed on the wikimedia websites. In fact, considering that I claimed that the WMF never has followed the GFDL, I pretty much implied the opposite. Again, my comment was that "the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the claim that you're following [the GFDL]". A defacto non-exclusive license to use the material is not a defacto non-exclusive license to relicence the material under CC-BY-SA. You even say as much yourself when you say "The GFDL allows the switch." Your claim is that the GFDL allows it, not that a defacto non-exclusive license allows it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
