[Foundation-l] Explanation related to the license migration needed

[Thomas Dalton]

2008/11/16 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>:
> I am making now one site (about pseudoscience) which I want to
> double-license, so materials may be used in the future at Wikipedia.
> As it is my site, I may make whichever, partial licensing, but I
> realized that there is one very stupid problem for which I think that
> answer exists, but I would like to hear your (and, especially, Mike's
> opinion):
>
> I want to import some Wikipedia materials. Usually, it would be
> translations from the Wikipedia in English in Serbian. (For all other
> materials I am explicitly asking for double licensing [otherwise, I
> wouldn't import them], so this is not a problem.) But, if I import
> Wikipedia materials *now*, I may do it only by licensing it under
> GFDL. Again, this is not problem related to my site, because I may
> declare that such pages are GFDL-only. However, I want to allow that
> derivative works from such pages may be used on Wikipedia (in
> Serbian), again.
>
> My common sense explanation would be that I may keep such pages
> temporary as GFDL-only and to allow GFDL/CC-BY-SA after Wikipedia
> switch to double licensing. But, I am not a lawyer and I am wondering
> is it possible to interpret the whole licensing process like that.

Since you could delete the GFDL-only version and remake it as a dual
licensed version after the switchover (assuming we do switchover), I
can't see how there could a problem. (Assuming you are the only person
to modify it, otherwise you need to be careful about what licenses the
modifications are released under.)