2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: > 2009/2/7 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:
>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You >> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count. > There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that > licensing updates that do not fundamentally alter the spirit of the > license and that are permitted through the license itself are legally > valid in all jurisdictions." (the FAQ) I don't hold much stock by > "belief", I'd rather here from somebody that actually knows about each > jurisdiction (at least, the ones where we have a major presence, every > single one would be impractical). Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being unable to prove a negative. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l