2008/11/16 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I am making now one site (about pseudoscience) which I want to double-license, so materials may be used in the future at Wikipedia. As it is my site, I may make whichever, partial licensing, but I realized that there is one very stupid problem for which I think that answer exists, but I would like to hear your (and, especially, Mike's opinion):
I want to import some Wikipedia materials. Usually, it would be translations from the Wikipedia in English in Serbian. (For all other materials I am explicitly asking for double licensing [otherwise, I wouldn't import them], so this is not a problem.) But, if I import Wikipedia materials *now*, I may do it only by licensing it under GFDL. Again, this is not problem related to my site, because I may declare that such pages are GFDL-only. However, I want to allow that derivative works from such pages may be used on Wikipedia (in Serbian), again.
My common sense explanation would be that I may keep such pages temporary as GFDL-only and to allow GFDL/CC-BY-SA after Wikipedia switch to double licensing. But, I am not a lawyer and I am wondering is it possible to interpret the whole licensing process like that.
Since you could delete the GFDL-only version and remake it as a dual licensed version after the switchover (assuming we do switchover), I can't see how there could a problem. (Assuming you are the only person to modify it, otherwise you need to be careful about what licenses the modifications are released under.)