[WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Mon Jan 23 02:09:04 UTC 2006

On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>GFDL is a non-exclusive licence.
> >>
> >>
> >Somewhat...
> >
> >"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document
> >except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt
> >to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and
> >will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
> >parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
> >License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
> >parties remain in full compliance. "
> >
> >So anyone using your GFDLed work under another license would
> >apparetnly automatically have her rights under the GFDL terminated.
> >At least, if that clause is upheld.
> >
> I don't think that it applies in the case at hand.  We were talking
> about Tony's user page.  Assuming that what's on there was written
> solely by him, he still has the right as the original grantor of the
> licence to also grant rights to others that are different from the ones
> expressed in the GFDL.  Nobody else has the right to do that with Tony's
> text.
>
> Ec

Sure, Tony can grant other rights to people outside the GFDL.  But,
according to the GFDL, if anyone actually exercises those rights the
GFDL itself is automatically revoked.

IOW, according to the GFDL, you can use one license or the other - you
can't use both (so to call the GFDL a "non-exclusive license" deserves
some caveats).

Anthony