Re: fair use through dual licensing?

>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. 
>  
>
What is your concern, exactly?  The by-nc, by itself, may not be 
compatible in spirit to the GFDL, but the GFDL dual licensed with the 
by-nc seems to be compatible in spirit with Wikipedia.  But maybe if you 
expressed your concern I'd understand.  Are you worried that a 
non-commercial entity is going to make changes and then...not profit off 
them?

>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.
>  
>
That wouldn't be affected in any way by this, though.  They could 
continue to use those works under the GFDL.  You can't revoke your license.

>>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. 
>  
>
Others have explained it.  But basically by creating a derivitive work 
which includes images which are not GFDL, you violate the GFDL.

>>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.
>
Are you saying because the edit windows contain the entire text?  It 
would be easy enough to clarify that you are only dual licensing your 
changes, not the works of others.  I think that's kind of obvious, though.

>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).
>  
>
This is the part I'd like to hear.  Why would you not be willing to 
release your text under by-nc?

Also, why are you standing by while Wikipedia violates the GFDL on your 
text?

Personally, I don't mind Wikipedia's GFDL violations, because they 
aren't trying to profit off my text.  But maybe you don't want to help 
out non-commercial entities other than Wikipedia?  Is that the problem?