I point out, in case this isn't clear, that dual licensing would very likely prevent the direct inclusion of materials from other Wikimedia projects, although not the other way around.

However, this isn't the case if you use "Contributor licensing", which is the seventh choice. Under this everything is licensed under the GFDL, but articles can also be dual licensed as determined by the original contributor.

...

You could allow every contributor to choose the license of his choice. So, ever page would have a different license. That's what I do in some of my projects.

Would you please try to understand how and why wikis work - especially the most successful one - before annoying us with ideas from your recently started projects?

Is Wikinfo not a wiki? Not the most successful one, for sure, but the whole point of Erik's comment is that we're considering doing something *different* from the rest of our projects for Wikinews. And my point of bringing up Wikinfo is that that's what they do (although it's restricted to a set of licenses).

...

I am very interested in learning more about your reasoning on public

domain

...

and why it's your favourite.

1. It's compatible with everything.

That's why I support it as my first choice in this case. I believe in copyleft, but for a collaborative project like Wikinews it's too much of a headache. If I'm making a site by myself, I'm going to choose copyleft, because if someone comes along and wants to negotiate a separate copyleft with me it's really easy, there's one person to contact. Dual-licensing (or really multiple licensing) can do this to some extent, for licenses already created, but it doesn't help for licenses (as opposed to license versions) not yet created. So you get into the real situation where just about no one objects to Wikitravel including content from Wikipedia and vice-versa, but it's illegal to do so without contacting every single contributor and asking for permission.

This problem is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Wikinews articles are likely to have far fewer contributors than Wikipedia articles. But that's why I also support "contributor licensing", which is similar to "allow every contributor to choose the license of his choice." But I've added the caveat that there must be a single license which everyone can use for every article, to facilitate mass redistribution. But maybe that isn't even needed. Whatever, so far no one has voted for my idea, possibly because not many people understand it, but no one has even commented on it or asked about it.

It should also be noted that "compatibility" with public domain is only in one direction. So while we can include parts of news stories in Wikipedia (which seems unlikely to be very useful), we can't include parts of Wikipedia in the news stories (which seems much more useful). That's why when I proposed "contributor licensing" I chose the GFDL to be the standard license that every article is licensed under. This way parts from Wikipedia can be used in articles which don't add the option of others.

Anthony