[Foundation-l] Wikiversity license

Robert Scott Horning robert_horning at netzero.net
Tue Aug 15 20:11:46 UTC 2006

George Herbert wrote:

>On 8/15/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>I'm not sure GFDL is the best license for Wikiversity. It depends on
>>>the amount of content mixing with other projects that is desired. I
>>>suspect that imports from other projects will be likely to create
>>>educational materials of different kinds, such as instructional
>>>devices embedding Wikipedia articles. From that perspective, the
>>>compatibility advantage of GFDL could be a compelling argument.
>>The other huge issue is that most of the Wikiversity content was started
>>on Wikibooks under the GFDL, and by abandoning the GFDL it is also
>>abandoning all of the effort that went into Wikiversity on Wikibooks.
>>That is a considerable amount of content and not something to be
>>discarded lightly.  This isn't like Wikinews that didn't have
>>substantial content already developed prior to its creation.
>>Robert Scott Horning
>I think that the number of contributors to content of Wikiversity is low
>enough that a large portion of it may be able to be released under another
>license.  All doing that requires is getting affirmative assent of all the
>contributors to a page / article / book / whatever that they are ok with a
>new license.
>The time to start doing that is now, however.  And the question of what
>other license to use is a good one... if one hasn't been selected soon, it
>will be practically too late.
I wish that were the case, but the number of significnat contributors to 
Wikiversity content exceeds 100 individuals even now, many of which used 
anonymous IP addresses.  If you are talking those who have contributed 
to the en.wikiversity website, yeah, you might be correct at the moment. 
 We can change the license for that content, but not for everything that 
needs to be moved over.

Robert Scott Horning

More information about the foundation-l mailing list