Dnia Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:55:50 +0200, mike.lifeguard napisał(a):
I'm wondering how we reconcile situations like http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Uim and http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Scratch/Content_License
These are GFDL plus PD and CC-by-sa respectively. But we have no indication whatsoever that contributors to the book (except Swift and Rob respectively) have agreed to this arrangement. Unless there is some compelling argument here, I'm of the view that the non-GFDL bit needs to be removed ASAP.
I fully agree with you. If an anonymous user comes to a Wikibooks page from Google search results page and makes an edit, he/she sees only notice that "all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence". I think noone would prove in any court that such anonymous user agrees to license his/her edits under Creative Commons license as well.
There is no way to retain dual licensing on Wikibooks, so we should remove any templates stating that a book is dual-licensed. However, we could leave templates saying, for example, that revisions before x May,June etc. 200x are dual-licensed, or that original version (URL to donated book here) was dual-licensed.