Re: Dual-licensed wikibooks
Derbeth <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.wikimedia.textbook |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dnia Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:55:50 +0200, mike.lifeguard napisał(a): > I'm wondering how we reconcile situations like > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Uim and > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Scratch/Content_License > These are GFDL plus PD and CC-by-sa respectively. But we have no indication > whatsoever that contributors to the book (except Swift and Rob respectively) > have agreed to this arrangement. Unless there is some compelling argument > here, I'm of the view that the non-GFDL bit needs to be removed ASAP. I fully agree with you. If an anonymous user comes to a Wikibooks page from Google search results page and makes an edit, he/she sees only notice that "all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence". I think noone would prove in any court that such anonymous user agrees to license his/her edits under Creative Commons license as well. There is no way to retain dual licensing on Wikibooks, so we should remove any templates stating that a book is dual-licensed. However, we could leave templates saying, for example, that revisions before x May,June etc. 200x are dual-licensed, or that original version (URL to donated book here) was dual-licensed. -- Derbeth Jabber id: [email protected] Wikisłownik to więcej niż słownik! Sprawdź: http://pl.wiktionary.org/ Opera - the fastest browser on Earth! http://www.opera.com/