<span class="q">Brianna Wrote:<br>> Anyway dual licensing is of course a possibility, but I'm pretty sure<br>
> as long as CC-BY-SA is in there it doesn't much matter what else is.<br>
> :)</span><br><br>Yes, this is my understanding of how the new licensing of GDFL will interact with CC-by-sa. So long as we license it as CC-by-sa then it will be compatible with Wikipedia. Dual licensing is no longer a necessity in order to provide 'sideways-compatability'. <br>
<br>The other important point here is that Creative Commons is an equal partner in this venture and therefore it would be polite to stick to their licensing scheme. <br><br clear="all"><br>On another note: in the primer planning page - <a href="http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Participatory_Culture_Primer">http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Participatory_Culture_Primer</a><br>
What is the significance of the "T= technology, G= government C=culture, E=education"<br><br>In your terminology - do you need a free (beer) v. Free (speech) comparison?<br><br>Looking forward to helping on this one.<br>
-Liam<br><br>-- <br>Email - <a href="mailto:liamwyatt@gmail.com">liamwyatt@gmail.com</a><br>Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914<br>Skype - Wittylama<br>Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]]