[Foundation-l] Wikibooks NL is changing License
Robert Horning
robert_horning at netzero.net
Fri Mar 23 07:10:29 UTC 2007
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Unless I am mistaken, GNU based licenses become null and void if you
> modify the license terms in any way. This includes
> publishing under multiple licenses (which is modifying the terms). I do
> agree that making the more open is a good thing, but I
> think you may void the GFDL terms if you release under dual licenses.
>
> Jeff
>
This is not nearly as difficult as it seems. It would be much more
problematic if they were trying to switch from the GFDL to the Creative
Commons license and not be under dual licensing terms.
As I've pointed out on other forii, there is nothing that would stop you
from simultaneously licensing content under the terms of the GFDL and
the Microsoft EULA. You are merely offering multiple methods of being
able to reuse the content, and for "downstream" users, you can
judiciously select one or the other license and use strictly those
terms. While not the MS EULA, MySQL AB offers this same approach to
their software (the MySQL database), where you have the choice to copy
their software under the GPL and connect it to other GPL'd software, or
you can use it under a very propritary and closed-source commercial
license that you must pay for. This is indeed a part of their revenue
model, and I've even had to negotiate the price with them for some
projects I've worked with. Compared to an Oracle database, the MySQL
terms for a commercial license really aren't that bad at all.... if the
MySQL database is sufficient for your needs. I don't want to get into a
holy war over what databases are best here, just to illustrate where a
major commercial example of dual licenses are being used similar to the
GFDL.
I don't see a substantial problem here as long as the portions that were
previously licensed under only the terms of the GFDL are clearly marked,
and that when you edit those pages that the contributors know that their
edits will only be valid under the terms of the GFDL.
I got into a debate with the Strategy Wiki about this topic, however
they were trying to do a full switch of their license from the GFDL to
the CC-by-SA license. Of particular note here is that a substantial
portion of their content was formerly on Wikibooks ("ordered" by Jimbo
to be removed... long story there) and they were trying to come up with
a system to be able to keep that older content yet make all new pages be
only available under the CC license. It is a similar issue, but instead
there were some proposals to "gradually" rewrite some of the older
Wikibooks content in such a way that eventually the older GFDL'd stuff
would go away. It was here that I thought they were flat out wrong, as
the GFDL would "contaminate" what they were working on as nearly every
edit of the older content would still be a derivative work. I had a
standing with the discussion because some of the content they were
trying to relicense had been my edits when it was previously on
en.wikibooks.
In this case with nl.wikibooks, I think they are taking a better
approach. "reverting" this license change is trivial, if the members of
the nl.wikibooks communty want to go back to just the GFDL-only
content. For all new Wikibooks that are created under this dual-license
approach, the end user has the choice of either keeping the dual license
arrangement or selecting one or the other license and forking it... but
as a project policy they are trying to maintain the dual license as long
as the content stays within the project.
The only real problem I can see is if there are derivative works that go
across language editions of Wikibooks. Most notable is the Wikijunior
Solar System, that I've seen reproduced in several languages, as well as
some of the language (2nd language learning) textbooks that may try to
borrow portions from other language editions... for example a German
textbook in Spanish and English (tri-lingual). This sort of licensing
arrangement is going to cause some difficulties for such cross project
efforts that may involve nl.wikibooks. I would agree that such efforts
tend to be rare, but they are not completely unheard of. In this case,
if translated documents come from GFDL'd text, that GFDL-only license
would have to be somehow preserved. Going the other way from
nl.wikibooks to other language editions would not be affected as the
GFDL would still be one of the options.
-- Robert Horning
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list