On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Anthony writes: >>> >>> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You >>> > have no >>> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under >>> > the >>> > GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over >>> > 30 days >>> > ago in an email to you). >>> >>> It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke the >>> GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as >>> to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license. >>> >> >> I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. >> Just reread section 9 of the GFDL. I find it rather astounding that you >> don't know what it says. >> > > Especially since it was one of the major changes (probably the second > biggest) to GFDL 1.3. Seriously, how could you not be familiar with that > change?
The dump content is still handled under GFDL 1.2 as no migration has been asserted. Hence the new clauses about notification and time limits aren't (yet) relevant. I concur though that even under GFDL 1.2 many of the dumps fail to comply with the license terms. -Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
