Re: Citizendium License (Was: [EWW] EditWikipediaWeek)

"Peter van Londen" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.org.wikimedia.textbook
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi

On Wikibooks-NL we work with a double license GFDL and CC-BY-SA.
No problems have arisen until now (but we are not that big).

Older books have a template with GFDL on every page.
Imported stuff (from Wikipedia) gets a template GFDL-Wikipedia

With a bot all pages on Time 0 (when we changed to double-licensing) were
marked. We have asked all contributors to retro license there changes so
that certain books started before Time 0 have now been double-licensed as
well. Most contributors agreed.

There are off course compatibility problems with importing, but until now it
was workable with templates.

New pages/books are all with double license as stated to the contributor
with every edit.

So it is workable (but not easy).

Kind regards, Londenp

2007/11/21, Andrew Whitworth <[email protected]>:
>
> The discussion on Wikibooks is not to use License A or License B, but
> instead to use License A or License A & B. We do mandate that all
> books be released under the GFDL, we are wondering if there is the
> possibilities for some books to additionally cross-license with
> CC-BY-SA-xx. The ramifications are:
> 1) if the book is on Wikibooks, all future edits must be
> cross-licensed accordingly
> 2) If the book content is merged in to another book on Wikibooks that
> is GFDL-only, it can be taken as GFDL.
> 3) if an editor wants to use the book under CC-BY-SA-xx only, he would
> have to fork the book to another location
> In lieu of a project-wide licensing scheme, maybe something like a new
> namespace could be created that would exclusively house books that are
> cross-licensed? It would be trivial to change the copyright warning on
> the edit page to show a different licensing message in different
> namespaces.
>
> Maybe we (the royal we, the WMF) need to put some pressure on the FSF
> to create a new GFDL version that is not so inhibitive as what we are
> currently using. Our copyright notice already states that content is
> released under "all future versions of the GFDL", so the transition
> would be transparent. Since WMF is one of the biggest users of the
> GFDL, i think we could exert that kind of pressure.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.