Roger, could you expand on this? I'm not following how it works. I understand that dual-licensing works for software because companies may not want to copyleft their work, and because just source code isn't actually all that useful minus maintenance and support and documentation and other things that companies like Redhat provide for money, but how does this apply to regular old content? Is the GFDL as 'viral' as the GPL in regard to modification and incorporation, and is not being GFDL valuable enough to various parties that the relevant corporations would still realize their desired sums?
--Gwern
Although gmaxwell will eat me, yes. GFDL is _viral_ too. The bigger trick of GFDL and which may make some parties to still pay for it is that you need to include a copy of the GFDL (several pages). If it hasn't other license, they must contact you (and get an agreement) to use it without such terms.