Re: Dual-licensed wikibooks

Hm...

I recently took part in a FLOSS Manuals Inkscape documentation
booksprint. Since my Inkscape knowledge is nothing special, I wrote a
guide to contributing to Wikimedia Commons, in theory the manual being
for people who were already familiar with Inkscape but not Wikimedia.
<http://en.flossmanuals.net/wikimediacommons>

FLOSS Manuals is by default GPL. I asked for this manual to be
dual-licensed with the GFDL so that its contents could be copied to a
Wikimedia wiki if desired.

I was thinking I should copy the whole thing to Wikibooks as a book,
but I wouldn't want to do that if the content couldn't be fed back
into FLOSS Manuals (which has a wiki-to-print process that actually
works, *now*).

GFDL did not win the free license race. It seems to me if you cut off
dual licensing you are cutting off a lot of potential partnerships.

Is it so bad if you just put a template on each page of the book
stating its dual license?
This is what http://mediawiki.org does, which has a namespace of help
docs which are PD, and intended to be exported with every wiki. All
the rest is GFDL which just stays at mediawiki.org. See
<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:PD_Help_Page>

cheers
Brianna
[[user:pfctdayelise]]

-- 
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/