Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Karl Wick wrote:
Now there's a thought ... what if each textbook project decides for itself depending on its own estimation of its needs? If a project decides wrongly, then only it has to start over. Sitewide policy can be submitted to the public domain, or kept under GFDL for copying from Wikipedia.
I think that it would be very unpractical. Keeping everything GFDL makes us bidirectionally compatibe with Wikipedia. Changing license to something else breaks that link.
I tend to agree. IMO the most practical thing for us to do is to have everything under the GNU FDL. This will make it very easy to use the vast amounts of material already in Wikipedia (which is, by far, the largest open content project in the world - please correct me if I am wrong anybody).
However, I also think it would be a great long term strategy to work with the GNU, Creative Commons, Open Content and others who publish copyleft/open content/viral licenses to ensure direct compatibility. IMO it is real stupid and counter to the intent of these licenses that text cannot flow freely between them. There should be some baseline of "freedom" that all these licenses already have and will recognize for the purposes of transferability.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)