On 6/10/07, the wub <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a
statement on their
user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL
also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my
edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that
such a positive statement counts as a release, however a
misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably
wouldn't.
There is something I've been wondering about this whole
multi-licensing thing, and now seems as good a time as any to ask: how
can you multi-license your edits when the previous edits that you are
modifying specifically states that you have to license your edits
under the GFDL? I mean, if I edit a page that has previously been
edited under the GFDL, I'm making a derivative work and then I'm not
allowed to release my contributions into the public domain because the
GFDL specifically says that you have to use it for derived works. If I
were allowed to multi-license my own content that's based on others
work, I would in effect be making their content more free, even though
I don't hold the copyright to it.
Obviously this doesn't apply when you write an article from scratch or
rewrite an article completely, but those edits are in the minority.
I just don't see how this whole multi-licensing thing is legal.
[[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]] doesn't really address this directly, so
could one of the smart legal minds on this list please enlighten me?
--Oskar