On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions complicate situation a lot
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use? There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle of relicensing for it).
I think that the number of CC-BY-SA books is significant enough for incorporation them into Wikibooks. Wikiversity may profit from CC-BY-SA, too.
However, counting the fact that some WBs and WVs are CC-BY-SA-only, wouldn't it be more reasonable to switch those two projects to CC-BY-SA only and to leave *Wikipedia* as straight dual-licensed? Generally, Wikipedia content is the most important production place for encyclopedic work, while other projects are not so. This means that Wikipedia should be able to give as more as possible, while other projects should calculate what is the best for them.