--- Tomos at Wikipedia wiki_tomos@hotmail.com wrote on WikiEN-l:
Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider the effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we would do just as Electicology suggested:
Sorry, it is simply not possible to create a derivative dual licensed work from a GFDL-only licensed article. Doing so would be a violation of the copyright of everyone who submitted the GFDL-only text. Dual licensing would also make it impossible to accept any new GFDL-only text.
We are stuck with the GFDL as is until the FSF makes changes to that license. Let's concentrate on improving the license we have - Jimmy has already stated that the FSF and CC people are interested in this type of thing.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
We are stuck with the GFDL as is until the FSF makes changes to that license. Let's concentrate on improving the license we have - Jimmy has already stated that the FSF and CC people are interested in this type of thing.
Exactly - our only way out of the license issues we currently have is to persuade the FSF to change it - a new license would apply to all *existing* articles without requireing an additional statement from the authors. However, if I remember correctly, we had some discussion in Germany some yeras ago that this particular point of the GNU Licenses (that the author license it's wark under whatever license the FSF will change it's current one into) would not be legal according to german law. I don't know if and how this was settled and if that's still an issue; I just wanted to mention that we possibly could run into difficulties here. But it's a very minor risk in my opinion, so it should not stop us from these talks with the FSF.
Uli
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org