Hoi, It is up to the copyright holder or to a particular project to decide what licenses can be used for particular material. When multiple, incompatible licenses are on offer to choose from, you may choose from what is on offer. Giving the choice for a license is "political". Choices are on offer because people want it, not because it is reasonable.
The best proof of why licenses are not necessarily reasonable can be found in the current situation where knowledgeable people assigned a license by contributing to a project and still insist on differences for *their *contributions that are contrary to the original license stipulations on this, a later date. Thanks, Gerard
On Dec 2, 2007 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
- IMPORTANT - I believe it should allow mixing of similar licenses,
e.g. CC-BY-SA into BSD -- the Definition of Free Cultural Works endorsed by Wikimedia could be a guideline as to which licenses can be mixed: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
Can't you already mix a copyleft license (like GFDL) with a free non-copyleft license (like BSD), so long as the combined work is released under the copyleft license? If so, this would only be useful for mixing with other copyleft licenses, which is arguably not all that important (especially once the wiki-world migrates away from the GFDL), and can be accomplished by dual/multi-licensing (if the author(s) desire(s)) anyway.
What I've consistently disliked about any kind of dual licensing is what to do when the licences disagree. That is not always readily apparent, and in the vast majority of cases won't matter. By the time someone's work has gone through several generations of re-use he may find that liberties have been taken with it that were never part of his original grant of licence.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l