As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only group which can choose a license, and what I understood was they would like the project as a whole to select a license which is most compatible with the goals of the entire project, not any single edition.
As to the suggested license, CC-by-sa, the primary argument against that license in previous versions was the requirement for attribution to all contributors by downstream content reusers. If version 2.5 allows attribution to the originating project then I see no reason not to adopt that license.
So to answer your questions:
- Do we need to license it right now?
Yes, the longer we wait the more content there is to relicense, and the larger the likelihood of argument and dispute over relicensing.
- Will we really choose CC-By-SA 2.5, or some other license, like
GFDL or CC-By, for example?
As far as I am concerned, the CC-by-sa 2.5 appears to answer all the previously-raised concerns and has the added benefit of an active community developing and maintaining the licensure.
- What should we do about the Wikinews projects which already have a
license choosed?
It should be gently pointed out to them that it is not something they can actually do, and ask them to bring their input to this discussion? I'm not sure how to bring it up without causing some level of conflict, but they might be asked how they decided they *could* change the license without asking the Foundation.
Amgine