On 9/18/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote: > "I have a suggestion from someone very high up in the Creative Commons > organization that we should dual-license (CC and GFDL), which I simply > hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to think it's a good idea." > > I'd like to know how that would be compatible with working from > Wikipedia content. I can only assume it would mean they'd have to accept a mix of dual-licensed and GFDL-only articles for the foreseeable future, the same as if Wikipedia were to implement a switch to dual-licensing. All material imported from Wikipedia would be labelled GFDL-only by default, and all new articles would be required to be dual-licensed. Imported material could be switched to a "dual-license" label if someone on their side confirms that the relevant Wikipedia editors have actually released it under CC or public domain. The main downside of this process, seems to me, would be that one wouldn't be able to freely lift text from one article to another within the same wiki; you'd always have to check if the licenses match. Note that lifting text like this technically causes copyright problems already on Wikipedia, unless one is careful to provide authorship information. -Nat Krause --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com