i think that pressure is already being felt with the Free Software Foundations draft the new FDL and SFDL http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html As for the dual issues...I'm just after some clarification...does Wikibooks actually stop someone from putting 'This book is licensed under the FDL and <insert license here>'? when putting a book on Wikibooks? adam -- Adam Hyde FLOSS Manuals http://www.flossmanuals.net

Andrew Whitworth wrote: I tend to get confused between real names and pseudos :-) Does any of you go along the pseudo SBJohnny or Whiteknight ? Ant

adam hyde wrote: I'll give a concrete rather than a hypothetical example: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Scratch/Content_License This is simultaneously licensed under both the GFDL and the Creative Commons Share Alike license. The page explains the reasons (for compatability with other websites where the content may be "forked" or moved at some point in the future.... or at least shared). I brought this issue up a couple of times in the Staff Lounge (now Reading Room) and as can be seen from the overwhelming response on the discussion area of the above Wikibooks page, it is hardly what could be called a controversial decision. But then again it isn't that big of a Wikibook that has made a huge splash in the Wikibooks world, much less among Wikimedia projects. As I pointed out in the reading room, the worst issue that comes from a dual-licensed Wikibook is mainly an issue of forking, where another website (or other publisher...it doesn't have to be a website) that does not allow (or chooses to ignore) the GFDL in any form can publish the book, this particular book, under the second license terms. In that case, any changes made in the other content format won't be added back to the Wikibooks site, nor if the GFDL license is ignored or purposely left out in the fork can anybody who has the content know that a GFDL version is available. For purists about the GPL and GFDL like Richard Stallman, this would be a huge issue. Also note that the GFDL is intentionally written to avoid this sort of issue, but it isn't illegal as long as all of the participants know about how the content is licensed ahead of time. In the case of this book about Scratch, the dual-licensing format was set up when the Wikibook was established. This is not something that can be done after a large number of people, particularly anonymous contributors, start adding content. The worst situation I saw was with the Strategy Wiki (http://strategywiki.org/) when they "took over" the editing of the gaming guides on Wikibooks. The participants of that website were disenchanted (to put it mildly) with the GFDL, and wanted to re-license all of the content to a Creative Commons license. Specifically to the point, they wanted to put up some sort of licensing regime that kept the GFDL for all of the older content (much of which was originally on Wikibooks) and "force" new contributions under the terms of the new content license. The idea was that the older GFDL'd content would eventually "fade away" and be replaced almost completely with content under the new license. This is a dual-license concept that is quite a bit different, but from my reading of the GFDL was something that is impossible without the explicit permission from all of the copyright holders. Since much of the Wikibooks content was added by anonymous contributors, not to mention by many registered users of Wikibooks who didn't even know their content was "moved" to the Strategy Wiki (I hope most know about this by now, but not all of them do), there was little in the way of an opportunity to voice an opinion on the terms of the relicense. BTW, to note, the Strategy Wiki is still GFDL-only, so this potential copyright issue was diffused by the proponents of the CC license backing down and accepting the GFDL. The only "escape hatch" that exists right now with the GFDL in terms of relicensing is the "or later version" clause that allows an updated version of the GFDL to be used instead of the current version. In this regard, nearly all Wikimedia content is dual-licensed with the current version of the GFDL and future versions...to demonstrate the power of dual-licensing concepts. BTW, it should be noted that there are many within the free software community that have removed the "or later version" clause from some GPL'd software...explicitly because they don't want to give the Free Software Foundation the power to modify the terms of the GPL to something they don't like. I haven't seen anybody writing GFDL'd content that is this anal, but it is a potential situation that should be looked into, and avoided on Wikimedia projects in general. -- Robert Horning

When we first started Wikibooks I brought up the licensing issues because I foresaw that the GFDL would limit the project and cause us problems. Jimmy Wales (or was in Mav, or both? It's in the email archives) stated clearly that Wikibooks would have to use the GFDL, just like the other projects, so the issue was closed. And remains closed. Now that the site was started with the license it has, it is very difficult to change, because every person who makes contributions is doing so under an implicit acceptance of the GFDL. Each contributer would have to give his or her permission for the license change. That would mean getting permission from each and every person who made any contribution, no matter how small, and even the anonymous contributions! This would be next to impossible. Or, throw out all of the old contributions and materials, and start completely over with zero contributions, and a new license. If there is going to be any dual licensing, I bet my money that it will not be legal, and this will cause great problems for getting books into the hands of real students. The only person who could convince me otherwise would be a good copyright attorney, whose help is sorely needed for this situation. By the way do not put much (read: any) hope in the FSF being flexible in any way whatsoever with making changes to the GFDL. Just trying to be realistic based on past observations.