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

[Isaac Sánchez Barrera]

I asked this same question few time ago, even on IRC and they resent the
mail to the Communications Committee of the WMF. Here's the answer I
got:

> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> Assuming I understand the question correctly, any currently  
>> compatible wiki could adopt the new GFDL/CC harmonized license  
>> within the time window specified by FSF.
>>
>>
>> --Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Mark Pellegrini wrote:
>>
>>> Today in IRC, Isaac Barrera from Astronomipedia (I am cc'ing him  
>>> on this email) came into IRC and asked an important question. With  
>>> the new escape clause in the GFDL and possible relicensing of WMF  
>>> projects, he asked what Wikipedia-compatible 3rd-party wikis  
>>> should do to stay compatible with Wikipedia. This is information  
>>> that should be posted prominently on the WMF website.
>>>
>>> -Mark

But I don't think it's clear enough.

El mar, 10-03-2009 a las 14:08 -0600, Chris Watkins escribió: 
> 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.
> 
> 


-- 
Isaac