--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
There is a tremendously important reason why all our text-based projects should be under the same (or at least compatible) license: To alow inter-project copying. It would be absurd to not be able to copy text back and forth between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, for example.
There may be situations where using a different license would be provide more advantages than the possibility of copying between projects would. As Erik has already mentioned, a Wikinews project is far less likely to be successful if bound by the GFDL. Another example is Wikitravel, who have already decided that the GFDL is unsuitable for a travel guide. I expect there are many more examples where having to include a full copy of the GFDL would provide a major disincentive to re-users of our content. Having one license across all projects makes it easier for editors, but it certainly is not always going to be the best option for re-users. We need to consider both when making licensing decisions.
Fixing the GFDL would be a perfect solution, but until that happens, I don't think we should rule out the possibility that future projects should be allowed to take an alternative route.
Angela. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela
____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html