[Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

Sat May 30 01:08:31 UTC 2009

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/5/29 Anthony <wikimail at 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.