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

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM, David Claughton <dave at encoresoup.com> wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.)
>
> As an owner of an (experimental) partial fork of WP, I'm also interested
> in this issue.
>
> My interpretation is that the migration clauses in GFDL 1.3 apply to all
> wikis, not just Wikimedia's.  So anyone running a GFDL wiki (assuming
> "or later version" text is intact), can migrate the content to cc-by-sa
> anytime up to the deadline.  This includes WP content that has been
> modified on my wiki.
>
> Obviously to do so before Wikimedia has decided if it is going to do so
> would be a bad idea if one wants to continue to bring updates across
> from WP (as this would be impossible after the deadline has passed).

The problem is that my site can't be treated as a "massive
collaborative site" (or whatever the name is) because it is a strictly
editorial work. As the date for importing GFDL-only texts passed, as
well as because of the first reason, I am not sure that I would be
able to use any of transitional conditions. But, Thomas gave a good
answer how to solve it; however, the licensing issue for me is an
easier one because I am translating articles, which means that I don't
need to care to any minor change and to be very sure that I wouldn't
have much more job after the migration than to rewrite dates of
translation.

At the other side, I think that your wiki may be treated as a "massive
collaborative site", which may be inside of transitional terms. But,
again, it would be good to hear Mike for such cases.

> Also, AIUI the dual-license thing is a private arrangement between the
> FSF and Wikimedia?  Therefore I do not have to honour it - I could in
> theory migrate to cc-by-sa only?  However this would make it difficult
> or impossible to bring updates on my wiki back over into Wikipedia (so I
> probably won't do this - I want to maintain bidirectional sharing)

According to the license conditions, you are able to do so.

While I understand why CC-BY-SA-only materials may be imported, I
agree with you that the best option is to leave sites double-licensed,
if possible. In the cases of small sites with very strict editorial
work it is possible to leave materials straight dual-licensed, while
any massive collaborative site should switch to Wikipedia-like dual
licensing (which means that CC-BY-SA-only texts may be imported).