fair use through dual licensing?

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>OK, first of all, my suggestion was by-nc, not by-sa.  
>Big difference. 

Yeah I noticed that. I just didn't comment because the by-nc is not even 
compatible in spirit to the GFDL (mainly since it is not copyleft). Thus it 
is not even a consideration for me. 

>As for being able to accept GFDL-only licensed text, is there 
>that much out there to begin with (that's not already in wikipedia)? 

Many people have either used our text or created their own works under the 
GFDL. We have incorporate several GFDL books written elsewhere into 
Wikibooks, for example. 

>Besides, if  you're going to be technical, wikipedia is not allowed 
>to accept GFDL-only (or CC by-sa-only) text currently, because 
>of the fair use images. 

What? How does that affect anything. 

>Eventually, most of the wikipedia would be able to be 
>dual licensed.

If we changed the license terms in edit windows, then we could not allow 
anybody to edit any article until either; 1) every person who contributed 
text in the current version of the article agrees to dual license their work 
or 2) somebody rewrites the parts under the single license. Most of Wikipedia 
would be closed to editing for many months, which would be a major set-back 
for the project. I would refuse to dual license my 35,000 article edits on 
Wikipedia and I'm sure others would join me (especially if the other license 
were a non-copyleft one). 

But there is no way in hell we would ever do that so the issue is moot.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)