[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

Sat Jul 15 17:19:14 UTC 2006

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Anthony wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>>court would agree with that...."
>>>
>>>Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
>>>that receives it.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Ownership of what?  The ownership of copyright doesn't get
>>transferred.  Copies of the work don't get transferred.  What gets
>>transferred?  Bits?
>>
>>    
>>
>I agree with you on this.  GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
>  
>
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does). 
And may qualify
as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT. 
People
just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If 
you grant someone unlimited
RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some 
period of time,
it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.

There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be 
transferred on the back of a bubble gum
wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give 
someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY
something.

Jeff

>Ec
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
>