On 19/11/2007, Andrew Whitworth
<wknight8111(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
There is a regular question on en.wikibooks that we have yet to find a
satisfactory answer on. I would like to know if some people here could give
us some insight on the issue.
The question is whether an individual book, or even an individual page
can be
cross-licensed under the GFDL and another license (such as
CC-BY-SA-x.x). I know that individual contributors can release their
content under a plethora of licensing schemes, but can we say that a single
book is released under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5, for example? And even if
we say that the book is licensed in that way, can we say that all future
wikibooks editors MUST also agree to release their contributions to that
book under that same licensing scheme?
The question arose earlier as to whether an individual book could be
entirely
released into the PD, although we've already decided that this
isn't really possible.
Would it be more reasonable to say that "XX version of this page, when
uploaded originally, was cross-licensed under GFDL and YY. Future revisions
of this page are only GFDL, but it is possible to copy, distribute, and fork
XX version under an alternate license as well, just not on this server."?
Derivative works must be licensed with both licenses if the original
work is covered by both licenses. GFDL and CC-sa licenses require that
derivative works are licensed with the same license (or a different
version of the same license). Two licenses covering one work doesn't
change the conditions of either license and isn't a reason to take the
requirements of either license less seriously - both licenses must be
carried across to derivative works.
This is false. It is a license not a contract. To create a legitimate
derivative work, the author of the new version must have a legal right to do
so. To accomplish this, he only needs to invoke one of the two licenses.
Hence a derivative work need only be covered by one of the two prior
licenses.
As a matter of policy, a wikiproject could hypothetically require that all
pre-existing licenses be carried forward, but this would be a project issue,
not a legal one.
-Robert Rohde