> > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:46:41 -0700 > From: Ray Saintonge <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52 > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > > Assuming that your analysis is perfectly correct what then? Informal > opinions from lawyers are still nothing more than opinions. Even a fully > researched legal opinion won't help much; that kind of legal research > may be too subtle for the average Wikipedian's simplistic conception of > law. The court's opinion is the only one that matters, and even then > only in that court's country. > > Who is going to test the law? Who is going to bear the expense of taking > all this to court when the damages are so very small? What is the > pragmatic solution? > > Ray > > I don’t know but I only see two possibilities:
A) We find a way to enforce the re-licensing of the derivative works under the same license. B) We change the license to a none-commercial one and issue a commercial license only to WMF. I don’t feel very happy by releasing my works under a free license if in practice everybody can reuse my work and exploit it in under a privative license. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
