[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

Mon Jul 17 05:41:37 UTC 2006

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the 
>>content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say
>>something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did 
>>not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of
>>a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY". 
>>I think you can see the logic. If folks
>>want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these 
>>GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not
>>be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL 
>>PURPOSES" and the words
>>"RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>It's more subtle than that.  It's free distribution not free contents.  
>Free is an adjective, and as such does not stand in isolation.  If 
>someone gives you a new hat with a logo on it the right to reproduce the 
>logo does not come with ownership of the hat.  Intangible properties 
>such as rights are not treated the same way as tangible properties such 
>as hats.
>
>GFDL allows for downstream reuses by all persons, not just for 
>educational purposes.  It is also not an unconditional granting of 
>rights.  It requires users to pass those same conditions on to 
>subsequent users, and provides that derivative works also be licensed in 
>the same way.  In simple terms a user who does not do this is in breach 
>of license.
>
>Ec
>  
>
The way it's worded in GPL2 (and GPL3) its ambiguous. I've also been 
following the FSF and
their litigation strategy over the years, and to be honest they wilt 
away like chaff in the wind
on a certain class of GPL violators -- big software companies who pinch 
GPL code then use it.

They onyl go after folks with little or no litigation resources. I Think 
they know if this thing got in front
of a court and someone bankrolled 20 mil into costs, it may not stand up 
... just a theory.

Jeff

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