[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Brian McNeil]

Platonides wrote:

> Robert Horning wrote:
>> I will note here that when the license issue for Wikinews came up, I 
>> voted for using the GFDL on Wikinews.  I do understand many of the 
>> arguments against the GFDL on Wikinews, and many of them are very 
>> valid.  I just liked the GFDL better, and felt that a common license 
>> among all Wikimedia projects was a better option. 
>
>> BTW, the issue of 
>> moving Wikinews content to Wikipedia has come up on Wikipedia, with some 
>> people pointing out (correctly IMHO) that the CC license used by 
>> Wikinews is completely incompatible with the GFDL on Wikipedia. 
>
>Wikinews is Cc-by which is AFAIK compatible with GFDL, so there 
>shouldn't be any problem moving content from Wikinews to Wikipedia 
>(there would be from wikipedia to wikinews, though).
>Why is it "completely incompatible"? Mike, are there any issues with 
>incorporing Cc-by content to a GFDL one? That would need quite content 
>revision...

Nobody from Wikinews is bothered whether or not Wikipedia will lift material
verbatim or rewrite due to license issues. The key issue is a lot of
contributors feel that Wikipedia does not see us as a credible source. Yet,
some random online source that is a popular glorified blog will happily be
cited. (Eg Slashdot).

The only exception I've seen to this was when I interviewed [[w:Tony Benn]].
I was told as I'd put a recording of the interview on Commons it was a valid
source. I am not aware if any of David Shankbone's interviews have been used
as a source for Wikipedia, but you'll forgive me for having the impression
that Wikipedia turns their nose up at our original research work.


Brian McNeil