[Foundation-l] Licensing resolution

[Liam Wyatt]

Congratulations to everyone involved in the effort to get this happening!
It's been a long road - a longer road than many of us have seen.

Just a quick point I'd like to raise about Wikinews in relation to the
license change.

Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, this
license change will not be affecting Wikinews.
As a result I think it's important that we don't say in any of our public
statements on this topic "all Wikimedia projects are changing...". Instead I
suggest that we use phrases like "all GFDL content" or "All relevant
Wikimedia projects" or something like that.

The board statement is ambiguous on this point. It says "...to relicense the
Wikimedia sites..." but the Wikimedia Foundation blog said "the Wikimedia
Foundation will proceed with the implementation of a CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual
license system *on all of our project’s* content." [my emphasis]. The licensing
update <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update> page on Meta does
specify that we are only talking about content which is currently GFDL: "to
make all content currently distributed under the GNU Free Documentation
License (with “later version” clause) additionally available under CC-BY-SA
3.0, as explicitly allowed through the latest version of the GFDL;"

Once again, congratulations everyone on the hard work and diligent effort on
this complicated issue.

-Liam [[witty lama]]
p.s. I suppose the same point goes for Wikimedia Commons which includes a
whole variety of licenses including much in the Public Domain.

wittylama.com/blog
Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia