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 >