[Foundation-l] Should a non-WMF project go for dual-licensing?

[Chris Watkins]

Should a non-WMF project go for dual-licensing? I know this is a Wikimedia
Foundation list, but the clarifications needed here will be helpful to
Wikimedia people as well.

Specifically, I'm trying to understand whether there is a significant
downside to dual-licensing - comments by Erik and others suggest there is,
and this option is only being pursued as it was part of the agreement with
FSF. I'm not clear why - this looks to me like an elegant solution that
gives more freedom to the people re-using the content.

My question in full is here (but it seems to be a quiet page):

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Should_a_non-WMF_project_go_for_dual-licensing.3F



Thanks.


-- 
Chris Watkins (a.k.a. Chriswaterguy)

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es