Andre Engels wrote:
As far as I know, this is not true. Creative Commons only allows spreading under the same license, not with more or less rights. Since the GNU/FDL is not the same license, it is not allowed to go from CC to GNU/FDL - or vice versa.
I'd love it if someone proved me wrong, and either showed that there is a loophole (intended or unintended) that can be used and/or could get the "those licenses require basically the same things but in different wording, so no harm is done by cross-licensing" argument into something that would be juridically valid.
There is not single "Creative Commons" license. The project allows you to pick the attributes you want, and then gives you a license that covers them. In the case of the PLoF, they have only chosen to require attribution. A summary of their license is here: http://www.plos.org/journals/license . It allows modifications for any purpose, and since they have not opted for a copyleft clause, derivative works can be released under any license, including the GFDL.
That said, we still probably won't be able to include much. PLoS publishes journals, and journals publish new research. As an encyclopedia, it is beyond our scope to publish research that has not yet gone through extensive peer review.
Stephen G.