On 2/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a question. Is it acceptable to put a non-free licence as an option if a work is also clearly under a free licence? If so, I might be suggesting this to a few people and organisations ... there's one or two I think I could get GFDL-plus-CC-by-nc-nd past ...
[Erik - not just that one, another one I'm speaking to. w00t!]
Because the Creative Commons has issued guidelines for the use of -NC licenses which suggest that it's perfectly fine to exploit a -NC image commercial so long as the exploitation is on behalf of a individual or non-profit, I wouldn't suggest anyone concerned about the commercial use of their works use -NC as it may not have the desired effect. (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines)
It's also the case that GFDL + CC-by-nc-nd is generally considered to be a sign of license confusion.
All that said, we do have people who do exactly as you suggest and there is probably no reason that we should forbid it in policy beyond the fact that promoting these non-free licenses is actively against our own interests. Especially if people use GFDL+CC-By-SA-NC rather than -NC-ND because we run the risk of someone making a derivative under Cc-by-sa-nc only thus removing the work from the pool of free works. (and on this note I'm going to go hunt for folks using GFDL+CC-by-sa-nc and ask them to change to GFDL + -nc-nd. Never thought I'd ask someone to use NC-ND!! :) )
Instead I think it's probably more useful to write the following in the permissions field:
"[GFDL]. Contact [MyNameGoesHere] to obtain alternative licensing in order to incorporate this work into non-free works."
This is just reemphasizing the GFDL+allrightsreserved which exists for all works.