2011/8/26 Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>om>:
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of
the page with
only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to
release the data in the public domain.
As I said before, I am targeting only a very specific subset of pages,
where contacting the authors won't be a problem.
2011/8/26 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>om>:
It might be easier to persuade whatever the organisation it is that insists
on PD to broaden their stance and become compatible with us.
Actually, this is about handling the import of Wiki Loves Monuments
data in OSM. Kolossos raised this on a OSM list:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-for-quot-Wiki-Loves-…
OSM is currently trying to get away from CCBYSA. :) I'm inssiting on
PD instead of ODBL because I find it easier to explain the concept to
the other contributors that send them to read the text of yet another
license.
2011/8/26 Fae <faenwp(a)gmail.com>om>:
Sounds a little problematic depending on the details.
If the text was
released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed "to release
your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License". If the all the
authors of the article can identify themselves as the same people who
contributed under the named accounts for the original Wikipedia
article then release to PD is no problem, in practice few articles
only have a history of contributors who are using accounts associated
with their legal identities.
That's precisely why I asked the question. The WMF have a procedure
for that, but other entities don't (or I'm not aware of it).
Strainu