On 21/11/2007, GerardM
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now you come along and say .. nah, NC is not an
option we cannot even
re-license our content. Were we to do that we might as well start a new
project. Well actually, does this mean that you cannot license your content
at all?
What I mean is that whilst people are *allowed* to license their
content however they wish, and that strictly speaking we would be
allowed to publish NC content, it just isn't practical for "Wikipedia
to use NC" - Wikipedia itself is doomed by inertia to remain GFDL. WMF
doesn't hold any of the rights and thus doesn't have the power to deem
things relicensed; you'd need the copyright holders to do that.
The nature of Wikipedia and our other projects (with however many
thousands of contributors, many anonymous, pseudonymous, or just plain
vanished) makes it almost impossible to even think about trying to get
each and every copyright holder to agree to such a relicensing.
By the way...
Whilst I see pretty well that getting the "ok" of all participants to a
Wikipedia article might be asking for trouble, why would projects such
as Wikibooks or Wikiversity not propose the dual license beginning today ?
When a book is started today by a new group, or when a book had only a
limited number of authors, this issue is not an issue. Why restricting
to GFDL license only these projects ?
Ant