[Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/27 Samuel Klein <meta.sj op gmail.com>:
> Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
> copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
> chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
> Wikipedia -- and  they will slowly lose access to the latest WP
> updates over months or years.   (we are also gaining direct access to
> new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle)
>
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>> The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving
>> content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
>> the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
>> be dual licensed.
>
> Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is
> possible.  This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia
> benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only
> last so long.  Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future
> revisions of the article are BY-SA only.  Within a couple of years,
> Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical
> snapshot still available under GFDL).  Third parties should not be
> fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a
> dual-licensed project forever.  If they don't switch now, they will
> not have the chance to do so in the future.
>
>
> geni writes:
>> Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely
>> that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in
>> future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been
>> imported.
>
> A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the
> outreach page will show you that it's not true that "most existing
> stuff of relevance has long been imported" -- these are active
> communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw
> from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in
> return.
>
> I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or
> importers.  I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source
> text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of
> that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the
> obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page.  Maybe I
> wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global
> publicity blitz.
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders
> <effeietsanders op gmail.com> wrote:
>> as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...
>
> Exactly.    And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia
> that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors
> and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert,
> but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work
> through their own red tape.
>
> SJ
>
Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move
/after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is
there any precendence on this is the US?

Lodewijk