Dnia Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:55:50 +0200, mike.lifeguard napisał(a):
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.
--
Derbeth
Jabber id: derbeth(a)jabber.wp.pl
Wikisłownik to więcej niż słownik! Sprawdź:
http://pl.wiktionary.org/
Opera - the fastest browser on Earth!
http://www.opera.com/