[Wikipedia-l] Preserving GFDL requirements when splitting articles

Sun Nov 20 22:18:19 UTC 2005

On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >There is a difference here between simply hosting your content,
> >hosting it with modifications, copying it to a different part of
> >Wikipedia, and copying it to an entirely different project.  The first
> >is pretty obviously legal.  The second is more questionable, and you
> >could argue that you have a right to revoke the permission (certainly
> >upon any violation of the GFDL which is ongoing).  The last two are
> >even more legally shaky, but there are plenty of arguments that it is
> >legal even outside the GFDL.
> >
> Whether these licenses may be revoked is a dubious prospect.  If someone
> revokes the GFDL that he has granted to Wikipedia what is the effect on
> the downstream user who has himself copied the material based on the
> licensing provisions that he found in Wikipedia, and which were
> perfectly valid at the time?   Anything but irrevocable licenses could
> lead to serious absurdities.
>
> Ec

Read clause 9 of the GFDL:  "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." 
Wikimedia distributes the Document other than as expressly provided
for under the GFDL, and has already had its rights under the GFDL
terminated.

Wikipedia's use of the GFDL is already absurd.  If you want to make
any sense of things you have to look beyond the GFDL.

Anthony