Chào các bạn,

Wiktionary tiếng Pháp đang nghĩ đến việc phát hành nội dung tay đôi dưới cả hai GFDL và Creative Commons Atribution ("by-sa"; bắt phải ghi công tác giả) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/. Làm như vậy thì sẽ có thể nhập cả nội dung vào dự án WiktionaryZ -- một dự án từ điển có liên quan đến Wiktionary nhưng đã sửa đổi phần mềm MediaWiki để trở thành cơ sở dữ liệu đàng hoàng. Tại vì WiktionaryZ sử dụng hai giấy phép GFDL và by-sa cùng lúc, các thành viên Wiktionary có lẽ phải đồng ý tái phát hành dưới by-sa.

Tình trạng của Wiktionary tiếng Việt hơi khó hơn: nếu chỉ có những thành viên Wiktionary tiếng Việt đồng ý tái phát hành, chỉ có vào khoảng một ngàn mục từ được nhập vào WiktionaryZ. Nếu Wiktionary tiếng Pháp đổi quyết định bản quyền thành công và chúng ta muốn bắt chước, chúng ta cần phải liên lạc với Hồ Ngọc Đức (tác giả FVDP) và Lê Sơn Thanh (WinVNKey) lần nữa, và sẽ cần nhớ việc này khi tiếp tục liên lạc với tác giả của Từ điển Thiều Chửu.

Hãy xem cả thảo luận về điều này tại http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-November/011490.html.

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Dual-Licensing Wiktionary :fr ? Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:36:08 +0100 From: Jerome Banal jerome.banal-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l-AeOJrEpdGNeGglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org Newsgroups: gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation

Hello,

We had a small chat at Wiktionary fr: since a few days about moving /new/ edits made on Wiktionary fr (and others some other are interested) to dual licensing GFDL - CC-by. After a small discussion with Anthere about whether we could be allowed to do it and how, she advised me to come and talk with you all.

So maybe a little explanation of the reasons and consequences would be useful.

The main reason we have in mind for discussing it is to have a better cooperation with the project WiktionaryZ, which is dual-licensed as specified above. It basically means that we can take its content under GFDL license, but that they can take only contents that are under GFDL and CC-by at the same time. Which is not our case.

Some people thinks that helping WiktionaryZ reusing our content would make them progress faster, and in return, that their progresses would help us making progress in the future in several possible ways (software part, data part...).

What would be the consequences about this license modification ?

* A site license somewhat more complex. Edits prior to the date of change would have to remain GFDL only (unless specific agreement with users), new edits would be dual-licensed. This is not awful: people can still reuse the whole Wiktionary as if it was GFDL-only. CC-by is just a bonus.

* As this is not a CC-by-SA (incompatible with WiktionaryZ), Wiktionary content could be taken, possibly modified and redistributed under any compatible licence with CC-by, which is about all as long as you give attribution, including non-free licenses (but of course, the original remains free so it should not be a big deal).

* Import from Wikipedia and other GFDL-only projects will not be possible without prior agreement with past contributors. These imports are not insignificant but remain limited in amount and often in quality.

* If we have to negotiate importing external source, we would have to request dual-licensing, as WiktionaryZ needs to, right now. CC-by is more free (I know, it's paradoxical; see it as "there are less restrictions, including the one to keep derivative free") than GFDL so it may be more difficult, as it is possible that the original authors can't get the enhancements made by someone else back in their own work due to a different license choice.

So there are good points (better collaborative work with WiktionaryZ) and bad points (probably more difficult reusing of some external sources -like some other GFDL dictionaries- which brought a good amount of articles in the past and of derivative works).

OK, I think that's the picture. What do you think about it? Should Wiktionary users start a poll on their projects? On Meta? Or does that just sound bad to you?

Thanks all, Jerome Banal