[Foundation-l] Licensing resolution

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Sat, 5/23/09, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 4:00 AM
> 2009/5/23 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> 
> > 2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard <mikelifeguard at fastmail.fm>:
> >
> > > I have been keeping an eye on what content got
> imported on English
> > > Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported
> from offsite GFDL-only
> > > sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though,
> that's not saying much
> > > - we often have contributors bring us whole books
> they wrote elsewhere -
> > > but that's not a violation since they'd be the
> copyright holder and can
> > > relicense it however they want. I doubt there are
> any similar cases
> > > which do violate the terms, but I'd love some
> help checking that.
> >
> >
> > What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and
> Wikisource? Did they
> > require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the
> case for Commons?
> >
> 
> depends on the language you're talking about :)
> 

en.WS is like commons.  I imagine most WS are.  The editors are not the copyright holders 95% of the time there, so the license is not up to them. The background stuff on the site and any notes written by editors to introduce the texts, will be relicensed I suppose. 

Birgitte SB