2011/8/26 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to release the data in the public domain.
As I said before, I am targeting only a very specific subset of pages, where contacting the authors won't be a problem.
2011/8/26 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
It might be easier to persuade whatever the organisation it is that insists on PD to broaden their stance and become compatible with us.
Actually, this is about handling the import of Wiki Loves Monuments data in OSM. Kolossos raised this on a OSM list: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-for-quot-Wiki-Loves-M...
OSM is currently trying to get away from CCBYSA. :) I'm inssiting on PD instead of ODBL because I find it easier to explain the concept to the other contributors that send them to read the text of yet another license.
2011/8/26 Fae faenwp@gmail.com:
Sounds a little problematic depending on the details. If the text was released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed "to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License". If the all the authors of the article can identify themselves as the same people who contributed under the named accounts for the original Wikipedia article then release to PD is no problem, in practice few articles only have a history of contributors who are using accounts associated with their legal identities.
That's precisely why I asked the question. The WMF have a procedure for that, but other entities don't (or I'm not aware of it).
Strainu