[Foundation-l] Wikibooks NL is changing License

Peter van Londen londenp at gmail.com
Thu Mar 22 22:49:24 UTC 2007

I tend to agree with Thomas Dalton here.

Once GFDL, always GFDL, or all people agree to have all past and future
contributions to a article/book double-licensed.

I rather do it on the safe side: it is GFDL or it is totally clear that it
can be double licensed (which would be with new books).

Kind regards

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton op gmail.com>:
> > 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.
> By my interpretation of the license, that would be a violation of the
> GDFL. I strongly suggest you seek legal advice before proceeding.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list