[Foundation-l] Citizendium License (Was: [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week)

Florence Devouard Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 21 11:45:02 UTC 2007

Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 21/11/2007, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now you come along and say .. nah, NC is not an option we cannot even
>> re-license our content. Were we to do that we might as well start a new
>> project. Well actually, does this mean that you cannot license your content
>> at all?
> What I mean is that whilst people are *allowed* to license their
> content however they wish, and that strictly speaking we would be
> allowed to publish NC content, it just isn't practical for "Wikipedia
> to use NC" - Wikipedia itself is doomed by inertia to remain GFDL. WMF
> doesn't hold any of the rights and thus doesn't have the power to deem
> things relicensed; you'd need the copyright holders to do that.
> The nature of Wikipedia and our other projects (with however many
> thousands of contributors, many anonymous, pseudonymous, or just plain
> vanished) makes it almost impossible to even think about trying to get
> each and every copyright holder to agree to such a relicensing.

By the way...

Whilst I see pretty well that getting the "ok" of all participants to a 
Wikipedia article might be asking for trouble, why would projects such 
as Wikibooks or Wikiversity not propose the dual license beginning today ?

When a book is started today by a new group, or when a book had only a 
limited number of authors, this issue is not an issue. Why restricting 
to GFDL license only these projects ?


More information about the foundation-l mailing list