Brad : the practical implications are that we will
lose the ability to
copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP
updates over months or years. (we are also gaining direct access to
new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle)
Thomas Dalton writes:
The only situation where there is going to be a
problem is moving
content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
be dual licensed.
Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is
possible. This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia
benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only
last so long. Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future
revisions of the article are BY-SA only. Within a couple of years,
Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical
snapshot still available under GFDL). Third parties should not be
fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a
dual-licensed project forever. If they don't switch now, they will
not have the chance to do so in the future.
geni writes:
Not much. Not many active third party GFDL
projects so it is unlikely
that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in
future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been
imported.
A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the
outreach page will show you that it's not true that "most existing
stuff of relevance has long been imported" -- these are active
communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw
from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in
return.
I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or
importers. I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source
text scans at
wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of
that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the
obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page. Maybe I
wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global
publicity blitz.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders
<effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...
Exactly. And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia
that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors
and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert,
but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work
through their own red tape.
SJ
Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move
/after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is
there any precendence on this is the US?
Lodewijk