[Foundation-l] Wikibooks NL is changing License

[effe iets anders]

I think there is some confusion indeed. Let's face an easy example:

Contributor A types:  "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Contributor B changes that into: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"
(read: A types the intro, B explains the subject further). Contributor
B can now dual license the yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-part, however he can
*not* dual license the part xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Even if he changes it
into xxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxx. (i.e. spelling correction)

Now imagine that now is the time that we change licensing policy, and
all new edits would be dual licensed. Now image that we are one year
later. And the ugly text has gradually been changed by editors into
"zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". That is not at all the same anymore as the
xxx-text. So that zzzz-text can be considered as dual licensed. Note
this will happen almost never.

Further it is possible that both A and B have proclaimed that they
release all their former edits under Dual License, and that would mean
that, if they are the only authors, the page would be totally dual
licensed. Note that this will only happen rarely either.

Further: You can not mix a text of only GFDL and one of only CC-BY-SA.
(they are conflicting on that). Bút you cán mix a text that is only
GFDL and one that is dual licensed. Because as community you choose
then to use in that particular case only the GFDL-side of the dual
license, however the text added taken out of it's context can be used
as CC-BY-SA as well. You can mix them because you can *choose* as
re-user which of the two (or even both theoreticly) you want to use.
In the case the person is editing a GFDL-old article, only the
GFDL-part will apply, as would be noted in a template on that very
page.

However, imagine that person C wrote an article, the policy changes,
and D and E edit the article after that. The article as a whole can
then only be used as GFDL. But now person C is proclaiming that all
his edits, also before the Change, are dual licensed. Then all
contributors have on some moment agreed that the edits made on that
page are dual licensed, so the article *is* dual licensed.

By the way, some people are assuming that this is about WikiPPPPPedia.
Please do not confuse Wikipedia with Wikibooks. They are quite
different.

Lodewijk

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton op gmail.com>:
> > I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
> > misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
> > the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
> > the problem or something else?
>
> Multi-licensing is not a problem. It's licensing a modification of a
> GDFL work under something other than the GDFL which is a problem. By
> my interpretation of the license, derivative works must be licensed
> under the GDFL and only the GDFL.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>