Matt R nicely answered
I'm not sure I follow you about compatibility. We all agree, surely, that dual
licensing gives people more options on how to use the work. Apologies if I've missed something, but I don't think anyone is arguing that en.Wikipedia should refuse GFDL-only material, but rather that we should encourage people to opt to dual license because that makes certain bits more compatible with other projects, and never less compatible. Have I missed a trick?
Personally, I think Wikipedia is (to a small extent) falling short of its goal
of "creating a free encyclopedia" if articles cannot be incorporated into other copyleft projects. I accept this is a complex problem, but the way I see it, voluntary dual licensing by contributors may help a little -- it certainly can't hurt.
hmmm, I see many scenarios potentially problematic, but let me give you an example of where we'll get in trouble.
RamMan goal is that the us cities articles become compatible with wikitravel license so that they can be used in wikitravel (for example). Right ? So, he would like that all contributors of those articles agree to release their contributions through dual license. We can forget minor contributions for now (considered public domain likely) and forget the little issue of deciding what is minor and what is not minor. Suppose all contributors release it dual. Then the content can be reused. What happen if just one contributor refuses ? I read some suggested that his contribution be reworked in such a way that it would not matter (understand here : the contribution is likely to be removed, but modifying it should not make it change license) What happen if one contributor refusing dual happens to work on the article after it was considered dual ? Is he allowed to contribute or should he agree to dual necessarily to participate on it ? What happen if some gfdl only content of other wikipedias is translated and added to the dual article ? Normally, it should again switch to a non reusable content. Or will the content be refused so as to preserve the dual license ? What happens if the user insists on adding gfdl content only ? How do you manage the fact wikitravel will accept en.wikipedia content, but not ja.wikipedia content ? How do you make that clear to editors ? How do you plan to explain journalists and website makers that they should use this page content in this way, but this other in another way and expect them not to find us totally crazy ?
I agree that the gfdl is problematic, but I am just not convinced of the procedure used. I would just like that someone answers me clearly on the points I mentionned above. I have been asking them for several days now, and the only answer I get is basically "well, some people are not happy with the current license, you do not want a fork, don't you ?".
Well, I love when people give me explanations. It is nice to take informed decisions. It is not so pleasant to make a decision because of a threat. I just apology in advance if I really do not understand much of licensing issues. I fear that this might be the case of many editors though.
Don't you think ?
-------
Perhaps I understand little of what RamMan is trying to do. I should go on holidays... ;-)
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
I dont think anyone is suggesting what you saying. The dual licensing drive is in no way official! Anyone can contribute to any article so long as thier contributions are gfdl. It doesnt matter if everyone before that edit has dual licensed it under CC. The CC version of the article will be that untill the first non-CC edit, and that (legaly) will be the point that wikitravel will have to copy from. Not that that has or will stop wikitravel copying straight gfdled content, but at least this might make the number of times that they break the gfdl slightly less.
Now dual licensing isnt going to help us in (legaly) copying from wikitravel, but if we are interested in creating a FREE encyclopedia, it does help.
paz y amor. [[User:The bellman]]
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:31:41 -0800 (PST), Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
hmmm, I see many scenarios potentially problematic, but let me give you an example of where we'll get in trouble.
RamMan goal is that the us cities articles become compatible with wikitravel license so that they can be used in wikitravel (for example). Right ? So, he would like that all contributors of those articles agree to release their contributions through dual license. We can forget minor contributions for now (considered public domain likely) and forget the little issue of deciding what is minor and what is not minor. Suppose all contributors release it dual. Then the content can be reused. What happen if just one contributor refuses ? I read some suggested that his contribution be reworked in such a way that it would not matter (understand here : the contribution is likely to be removed, but modifying it should not make it change license) What happen if one contributor refusing dual happens to work on the article after it was considered dual ? Is he allowed to contribute or should he agree to dual necessarily to participate on it ? What happen if some gfdl only content of other wikipedias is translated and added to the dual article ? Normally, it should again switch to a non reusable content. Or will the content be refused so as to preserve the dual license ? What happens if the user insists on adding gfdl content only ? How do you manage the fact wikitravel will accept en.wikipedia content, but not ja.wikipedia content ? How do you make that clear to editors ? How do you plan to explain journalists and website makers that they should use this page content in this way, but this other in another way and expect them not to find us totally crazy ?
I agree that the gfdl is problematic, but I am just not convinced of the procedure used. I would just like that someone answers me clearly on the points I mentionned above. I have been asking them for several days now, and the only answer I get is basically "well, some people are not happy with the current license, you do not want a fork, don't you ?".
Well, I love when people give me explanations. It is nice to take informed decisions. It is not so pleasant to make a decision because of a threat. I just apology in advance if I really do not understand much of licensing issues. I fear that this might be the case of many editors though.
Don't you think ?
Perhaps I understand little of what RamMan is trying to do. I should go on holidays... ;-)