[Commons-l] Dual-Licensing Commons

[Bryan Tong Minh]

Totally relicensing Commons would be impossible: it would require
consent of all current and past contributors. For me personally, I
think copyleft is evil, and have all my text contributions multi
licensed with the CC-BY-2.5.

Bryan

On 2/9/07, nilfanion wiki <nilfanion at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I had a random thought today and think it is worth a cursory consideration.
> Would it be (1) desirable, (2) technically feasible and (3) legal to
> relicense Commons under a dual GFDL / Creative Commons license as opposed to
> the current GFDL state?
>
> I don't no strong feelings about this, but I feel it is worthy of a
> discussion. If it IS possible and legal (I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if
> it is possible or not), I think there might be beneficial effects of it. For
> example, imagine the following scenario:
>
> An image is uploaded to Commons as CC-by-sa-2.5. A third party then makes
> use of the image, under the terms of the CC license. In addition to the
> image, they copy the description on the Image: page to use as their caption.
> As the text of the page is licensed under the GFDL, would this downstream
> user have violated the GFDL?
>
> If the answer to this question is yes, then there could be significant
> benefits to a dual-licensing of Commons itself. If this went anywhere, I'd
> imagine the final decision would be made by the Foundation, but the
> community ought to think it over first...
>
> What do people think? (If its daft, don't hold your punches I don't mind)
>
> Nilfanion
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>