[Licom-l] More on dual licensing (updating Q&A)

[Ryan Kaldari]

Personally I think we shouldn't worry about it that much as the
dual-licensing is merely transitional (by my understanding). Assuming
our outreach efforts are successful (which should switch to targeting
reusers after August 1), I would suggest that a year from now, we
propose switching to CC-BY-SA completely and dropping the
dual-licensing.

Ryan Kaldari

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip a lot of good points for discussion>
>>
>>> * I seem to think that the latest-revision of articles will become
>>> CC-SA-only more quickly than most do - 2 years max before that
>>
>> I am only going to comment on this last bit right now.
>>
>> How many examples can you think of from the bulk importing of GFDL
>> text?  Choose a featured article at random, does it have any
>> externally published text in it that is neither fair use nor public
>> domain?
> <
>>
>> My expectation is that in 5 years, much less than 10% of Wikipedia
>> articles will have been affected by importing CC-BY-SA text.
>
> Interesting.  You could be right.  I don't know about gfdl sources
> since we don't ask, but there are many more cc-sa sources than gfdl
> sources.
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The position articulated in discussions at Meta (and Erik please
>> correct me if I misstate this), is that:
>
> I believe you state the current published position correctly.  It is
> more hands-off than the approach we take to ensuring media uploaded to
> commons follows an acceptable free license; or than the approach we
> take to affirming that edits to pages are valid GFDL (soon to be
> CC-SA-and-GFDL-where-possible) edits.
>
> If we cannot commit to more than this, we should reduce the strength
> of dual-licensing claims.   We are misleading most reusers into
> thinking that the latest version of Wikipedia will always be available
> under the GFDL, when in reality it will become substantially difficult
> for a serious reuser to figure out whether any revisions after June 15
> are in fact usable in other GFDL contexts.  I don't want to waste lots
> of time on this; I just want to have a coherent story for those who
> care and a good page describing how to tell whether an article
> revision is GFDL / what the last GFDL revision is.
>
>
>> However, individual communities may choose to go further and provide
>> efforts to voluntarily label materials that are CC-BY-SA-only, such as
>> through a Category system.
>
> Yes, or better still through a change to the edit page that allows
> form-based classification, by category or otherwise.  Commons
> licensing was a mess until this was insituted.
>
> SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Licom-l mailing list
> Licom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/licom-l
>