Erik Moeller schreef: [cut]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local bottom-up implementation between now and then.
Question;
From the Q&A about this;
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Dual_license_vote_May_200...
Are you basically replacing the GFDL on Wikipedia with CC-BY-SA?
No, we proposed that all content currently available under GFDL will also be made available under the CC-BY-SA license, and that all future revisions must be dual licensed, with the exception of CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources.
When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License".
No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.
Yes, there is the phrase; "additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details."
But is that not a weasley way of saying it is actually dual-licensed and also GNU/FDL?
That is not very Wikipedia style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words