I asked this same question few time ago, even on IRC and they resent the
mail to the Communications Committee of the WMF. Here's the answer I
got:
Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> Assuming I understand the question correctly, any currently
> compatible wiki could adopt the new GFDL/CC harmonized license
> within the time window specified by FSF.
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Mark Pellegrini wrote:
>
>> Today in IRC, Isaac Barrera from Astronomipedia (I am cc'ing him
>> on this email) came into IRC and asked an important question. With
>> the new escape clause in the GFDL and possible relicensing of WMF
>> projects, he asked what Wikipedia-compatible 3rd-party wikis
>> should do to stay compatible with Wikipedia. This is information
>> that should be posted prominently on the WMF website.
>>
>> -Mark
But I don't think it's clear enough.
El mar, 10-03-2009 a las 14:08 -0600, Chris Watkins escribió:
Should a non-WMF project go for dual-licensing? I know
this is a Wikimedia
Foundation list, but the clarifications needed here will be helpful to
Wikimedia people as well.
Specifically, I'm trying to understand whether there is a significant
downside to dual-licensing - comments by Erik and others suggest there is,
and this option is only being pursued as it was part of the agreement with
FSF. I'm not clear why - this looks to me like an elegant solution that
gives more freedom to the people re-using the content.
My question in full is here (but it seems to be a quiet page):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#…
Thanks.
--
Isaac