On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Good point! Or if the page on en.wp is not drastically changed, I would be able to refer to the newer version of the article. BTW, I am not the only person who is working on the site, but it is a very small group of people and editing is not open to the world.

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I realized now what is the main problem. The issue wouldn't be newer or older version of the Wikipedia article because all older versions will be dual licensed in the future (of course, if it would be a decision). The main problem is importing GFDL materials to my project and treating them as GFDL-only. So, even article is GFDL-only, every author (even it is a small number of them, not all of them are my friends reachable by phone call) should agree to give permissions under CC-BY-SA, too to Wikipedia (until the end of transition) "if Wikipedia moves to dual licensing". BTW, it would be really useful to write some short manual for GFDL and other wikis: what means what and what would be the best to do according to the possible transition of Wikipedia to the specific dual-licensing.

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM, David Claughton <dave(a)encoresoup.com> wrote: The problem is that my site can't be treated as a "massive collaborative site" (or whatever the name is) because it is a strictly editorial work. As the date for importing GFDL-only texts passed, as well as because of the first reason, I am not sure that I would be able to use any of transitional conditions. But, Thomas gave a good answer how to solve it; however, the licensing issue for me is an easier one because I am translating articles, which means that I don't need to care to any minor change and to be very sure that I wouldn't have much more job after the migration than to rewrite dates of translation. At the other side, I think that your wiki may be treated as a "massive collaborative site", which may be inside of transitional terms. But, again, it would be good to hear Mike for such cases. According to the license conditions, you are able to do so. While I understand why CC-BY-SA-only materials may be imported, I agree with you that the best option is to leave sites double-licensed, if possible. In the cases of small sites with very strict editorial work it is possible to leave materials straight dual-licensed, while any massive collaborative site should switch to Wikipedia-like dual licensing (which means that CC-BY-SA-only texts may be imported).