[Foundation-l] Multi-licensing situations on page text

[Oldak Quill]

On 19/11/2007, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/11/2007, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 2007 5:48 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 19/11/2007, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is a regular question on en.wikibooks that we have yet to find a
> > > satisfactory answer on. I would like to know if some people here could give
> > > us some insight on the issue.
> > > >
> > > > The question is whether an individual book, or even an individual page
> > > can be cross-licensed under the GFDL and another license (such as
> > > CC-BY-SA-x.x). I know that individual contributors can release their
> > > content under a plethora of licensing schemes, but can we say that a single
> > > book is released under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5, for example? And even if
> > > we say that the book is licensed in that way, can we say that all future
> > > wikibooks editors MUST also agree to release their contributions to that
> > > book under that same licensing scheme?
> > > >
> > > > The question arose earlier as to whether an individual book could be
> > > entirely released into the PD, although we've already decided that this
> > > isn't really possible.
> > > >
> > > > Would it be more reasonable to say that "XX version of this page, when
> > > uploaded originally, was cross-licensed under GFDL and YY. Future revisions
> > > of this page are only GFDL, but it is possible to copy, distribute, and fork
> > > XX version under an alternate license as well, just not on this server."?
> > >
> > > Derivative works must be licensed with both licenses if the original
> > > work is covered by both licenses. GFDL and CC-sa licenses require that
> > > derivative works are licensed with the same license (or a different
> > > version of the same license). Two licenses covering one work doesn't
> > > change the conditions of either license and isn't a reason to take the
> > > requirements of either license less seriously - both licenses must be
> > > carried across to derivative works.
> >
> >
> > This is false.  It is a license not a contract.  To create a legitimate
> > derivative work, the author of the new version must have a legal right to do
> > so.  To accomplish this, he only needs to invoke one of the two licenses.
> > Hence a derivative work need only be covered by one of the two prior
> > licenses.
> >
> > As a matter of policy, a wikiproject could hypothetically require that all
> > pre-existing licenses be carried forward, but this would be a project issue,
> > not a legal one.
>
> Still thinking about our hypothetical GFDL and CC-by-sa dual-licensed
> document, even if the CC-by-sa license is used to "invoke" the right
> to a legitimate derivative work, this work will still have derived
> from a GFDL-licensed document and would also have to be licensed under
> the GFDL. At least, this is my impression of licensing and I may be
> wrong.
>
> GFDL and CC licenses are independent of each other. One can't be
> chosen for a derivative work (and the other dismissed) if the original
> was licensed under both. Both licenses require that any derivative
> works must be licensed under the same or a similar license (GFDL and
> CC licenses are too dissimilar to be considered "similar licenses",
> and can't be substituted for each other).

Sorry Robert, I was wrong about this. A post at cc-licenses mailing
list (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002265.html)
cleared things up. So only original works can be dual licensed, and
derivatives have to be licensed under either GFDL or CC-by-sa and
_cannot_ be licensed under both?

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)