I've read about how Malber is revoking his GDFL licencces. Can he do this?

I think the short answer is no.

So is Malber insane or only trolling?

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Malber
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...ibutions/Malber

Does he give any elaboration of why he believes he can do this?

ADD: Hey, those links weren't there when clicked "reply." Looks like it will require some parsing. I have to go for a while. I will rejoin the discussion when I return.

I don't believe he can, either.

Gmaxwell blanked Malber's talk page and said, "Talk is not a soapbox. We provide you with a talk page to facilitate collaboration, not to facilitate your infantile attempt to destroy the project because things didn't go your way"

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151915444

Why would he revoke GFDL-licenced contribs? It says right when you are editing "All of your contributions will be licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License".

I'm pretty sure that Grand Dyslexical Feuilleton Literature is as often re-voked as it is e-voked and in-voked.

As for the wholly unrelated GNU (GNU's Not Unix) Free Documentation License, I'm not so sure, but I sorta doubt it.

At any rate, IANAG, so please check your friendly local GNU — except, of course, in those States of the US where checking GNU's is contrary to Law, if not, indeed, against Nature.

Jonny

Well I'm pretty sure he is crazy or at least terribly immature.

Lots of "I hate Selina and WR" stuff in the history of his user page. I'm sure Blissy could fill in the background. Lately he seems to have ran afoul of the wiki-cops. He would like to pack up his pics and hit the road.

I've tried to work through the merits of his arguments about "revoking" his grant of a GFDL for his contributions. He starts by saying a license isn't a contract---which is correct. He then, however says "It is also established law that a license cannot be made irrevocable without consideration." I wish he'd cite some authority for this but he doesn't. Probably because he is either making things up as he goes along or is parroting arguments he doesn't understand. Consideration is a contract concept--- not a license concept. He also seems to think that "consideration" is just money. He is ignoring that it can be a promise, such as promising to grant the license to subsequent users, or the promise to provide attribution. If consideration is needed to stop license revocation (something he has not provided authority for) he has been provided with ample consideration. Finally he is ignoring that other users are relying on his prior grant, to their detriment if he was allowed to revoke his grant of license, in respect to any further modification, developing and use of the content he provided.

So I'd say Malber is just some immature kid blowing smoke about something he doesn't understand. I also think if ever there is an appropriate reason to ban a contributor it is for asserting a content license inconsistent with that required by the site.

How can I possibly say this...
Someone finally got it right!

AGREEEEEEEEEEEEED

Malber isn't insane. He's mean, but he's not insane. He is a troll, however. He is a whopping big liar, and a reasonably good front-on manipulator. I say that to distinguish his kind of manipulation from the kind of back-room manipulation that SlimVirgin makes. Malber makes jokes, does full frontal attacks and then dares you to respond. He is a troll. This is trolling. He's laughing his head off about it.

News flash: He just got an indef block for revoking the GDFL license:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:Malber

As much as I hate to say it, we should probably be encouraging things like this, even if Malber has no case...

Unfortunately, the point about the license being unenforceable works both ways. If anything, an attempt to revoke the license in any particular person's case is probably even less enforceable than simply maintaining the original terms... I'm not a lawyer, though.

I mean, when it comes to things like uploaded (and unaltered) image files, assuming the images are original and non-derivative in themselves, he might have some sort of case... At least (IMO) he wouldn't be laughed out of court on the basic principle of his argument. He'd be laughed out of court on the basis of no substantial harm, of course.

Where is the on-wiki discussion of this?

I know what you mean Somey. That is why I didn't want to dismiss him out of hand without at least trying to figure out if what he said had any merit. The potential for mischief if people could yank their content would be significant. I'm not against mischief at all. It is possible that someone might construct a better argument. Remember what GFDL is. (unfortunately not GDFL which would permit a better jokes as GodDamn Fucking License) It is a humble effort to augment the Gnu free software licenses by having a license to cover manuals and documentation. Little more than an afterthought really. Extending this license to cover the Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit already requires a really large heat sink. And photo and non-text media would seem to even stretch the devise farther. Better cobble on a fan on top of that heat sink or some kind of pump to water cool that hummer.

The thing is that regardless of any other license, you still own the items, as your own intellectual property BUT you are also allowing Wikipedia to own it.

In other words, you could publish a book quoting what you've said as being owned by you, and so could Wikipedia.

BUT - Wikipedia also lets ANYONE quote a book as quoting what you said.

It ends up being ridiculously complicated, and my knowledge of the law doesn't extend that far. I didn't finish my law degree, I do have a paralegal qualification, and one of my sisters is a qualified barrister, but yeah IANAL. But I always represent myself in court cases, unless it is pertinent for some reason to have a lawyer present.

It probably is legal to revoke the GFDL. Furthermore the GFDL is *automatically revoked* whenever you use the GFDLed text in any way other than that provided by the license, which the WMF does all the time. However, there are other legal arguments besides permission under the GFDL which the WMF could use. It'd be an interesting case, and it'd finally clarify a lot about just what rights the WMF has with works submitted to Wikipedia.

But I don't foresee this particular dispute reaching an actual court decision.

Someone banned Malber permanently. Should we welcome him back here, now?

He had just been given a block for abusive sockpuppetry as well. He does like living dangerously!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki...ppets_of_Malber

LOL. This is PROOF that SlimVirgin is away.

If she was here, she'd have undone those bans long ago.

Those are all old from March or earlier except for one of them that was a week ago.

New proto-policy:
Wikipedia:Revocation_of_GFDL

I say that the ban was not unfair in this instance. I like GNU, and it says YOU CAN NOT REVOKE THE LICENCE. It doesn't need to be indef, they should at least assume good faith.

It says ban, and doesn't say that the ban would be lifted. Hence I think it is fair to say that it is implied that it is an indef ban.

I think you are confusing "terminating" with "revocation." Terminating ends your rights. Revocation ends the rights of others. The GFDL discusses termination in section (9). It does not discuss revocation at all.

I do think the best possible case for revocation would be 1) a fresh piece of text, not a modification of a document, is presented under the terms of the GFDL. 2) No one uses, modifies, or does anything at all with the document 3) the grantor of the license formally revokes the license.

This creates to an interesting question. When new text is posted under a GFDL license is WMF immediately making use of the text under the license? Or is the first licensee the next editor who modifies or uses the text? Another way of saying this (I think but it is confusing): Does WMF own the content of the encyclopedia and then re-licenses it under the GFDL? Or is it owned by a constantly changing chain of editors.

Termination ends the rights of the entity which used the text in any way not allowed under the GFDL, which is something that the WMF continually does by not crediting 5 authors on the title page.

Well he did a whole lot of name calling and lying about WR. Called us "Neo-Nazi" and "Anti-Semites." He conflates Selina with Igor. Which makes him a liar.

I mean he claims that the people who made a principled stand and drove out the fascists and anti-Semites to be those very things. If he wants to come back here he is going to have to apologize and retract these lies in great detail as far as I'm concerned.

No that is completely wrong.

You must be refering to Section 4( B ), titled "Modifiations" of The GFDL :




This really illustrates the new wine in old wineskins aspect of using GFDL with WP. What title page? This was written with a printed text manual in mind.

Should we let Malber back in? No.

When Malber first came to Wikipedia Review, he and Grace Note were assumed to have been about to be banned. As it turned out, in a large part because of their behaviour here, they managed not to get banned from Wikipedia, and indeed this is probably a large reason why he held out for so long. Indeed, you could go so far as to say that the real reason why this led to Malber getting banned now was because SlimVirgin has been having troubles lately and hasn't been about to protect him. If SV was about, no doubt she'd have unblocked him and put up a big argument that his ban should be lifted and so forth. Indeed, she still might do this.

Anyone who was around when Malber was here would know that he has already done all of his chances. And one important issue is that whilst Grace Note was some kind of a critic, Malber isn't. I don't see the point in letting him in.

However, Malber wasn't the one calling us anti-semites and neo-nazis. That was only Grace Note. If Malber discussed it at all, it wasn't any more than anyone else. Malber was more of a troll than anything.

Neo-Nazis hate site.

Selina the cross burner and racist.

What really pisses me off is characterizing people who stood up to neo-nazis and racists as being those very things. Malber is a liar.

Yeah, maybe, but he still did less than GN.

Mind you, I didn't realise he'd done that much.

Malber is about on par with Tony Sidaway, Ta Bu Shi Da Yu, Snowspinner and Ambi, and a little behind SlimVirgin and Jayjg.

And what if she did this and then Malber kept on trolling being "I'm revoking my GDFL", putting harry potter spoilers in request for adminship pages?? ?? ?? ????? ??

SlimVirgin "I've lessened Malber's block to 1 week. He has agreed that it was a joke in bad taste and has assured me that he won't do it again. Malber is a real asset to Wikipedia, and we don't want to lose him forever. Give him a deep breath, and he'll come back bigger and better than ever."

Wow brilliant.

I don't think we will see Malber around here any time soon, as he is eating Turkish Delight out of the Ice Queen's very own hand.

Ice Queen !!!
Ice Queen !!!
We All Squeam
For Ice Queen !!!

Brrrrrrrrrr!!!

Jonny

What does that metaphor mean?

Narnia Bizness …

Jonny

I don't remember the kids name but one of the siblings betrays the others (and lion Jesus)because he is fond of a certain confection that the villian gives him. So it means he is a traitor, liar and a snitch. C.S. Lewis sets everything to rights in the end.

Edmund. Got it on DVD.