On 9/18/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
"I have a suggestion from someone very high up in the Creative Commons organization that we should dual-license (CC and GFDL), which I simply hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to think it's a good idea."
I'd like to know how that would be compatible with working from Wikipedia content.
Technically I think it would only be fine in the terms of content which has been multi-licensed by contributors. Unfortunately I suspect most of the content is not licensed as such (personally I have thought we should require multi-licensing on all new contributions for quite awhile, but nothing has seemed to move in that direction in a systematic, across-the-board sense).
Non-technically speaking, it is clearly within the intent of the GFDL, if not the letter-and-word. But strictly speaking, our use of our own content is not within the letter-and-word of the GFDL, mainly because the letter-and-word of the GFDL does not really lend itself to things like Wikis.
(I think the intent and basic mechanisms of the GFDL are great. I think the implementation is poor. I suspect that anything which implemented the GFDL as poorly as Wikipedia does would not hold up strongly in court.)
Depending on how they mean "dual-use", I think that it would be feasible for Wikipedia to use their content, though.
FF