Hi everyone!
This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious.. how
common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL and
CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses. You
could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving
Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not come
across!
I'm also looking for examples of people/companies using dual CC licenses,
such as a CC-BY-NC-SA and some other kind of CC license (maybe a sampling
license).
Thanks!
On 2/27/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/02/07, Marco Chiesa
<chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL +
CC-BY-NC-SA
(on
en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a
double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload
of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
It believe it should be OK - we only care that a picture has *a* free
license, we're not trying to control all possible licenses for it. But
beware, the non-free CCs have templates that put them in "delete me"
categories, so you might want an alternate template or just boilerplate
text, so triggerhappy admins :-) don't blast the image before noticing
its dual license.
It *is* a clever idea to use GFDL to discourage casual commercial use...
Stan
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l