Re: Dual-licensed wikibooks
"Brianna Laugher" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.wikimedia.textbook |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
2008/8/15 mike.lifeguard <[email protected]>: > Using a template on each page is a step in the right direction, but it is > still questionable whether that is acceptable legally. Do we even know that putting a notice below the edit box that says "you must license your contribs as GFDL" is "acceptable legally"? It's probably not. I mean we only just had the first ever court case that basically said "yes, open content licenses are a proper license". Virtually everything we do is in uncharted legal territory. I don't think that's a strong reason to stop doing stuff. > My biggest problem here is that we cannot force anyone to license their work > under anything but the GFDL. So if someone doesn't want to also use cc-by-sa > or PD or whatever, we can't say "Then you may not contribute to this book" How can we "force" anyone to do anything? It's always been, "play by our rules and your contribs are welcome. If not, see you later." And that is true for legal things like GFDL and merely community norms like NPOV or even a Manual of Style. What is wrong with having a community norm that if a book is stated as being dual-licensed, other editors must contribute to the book under the same set of licenses? cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/