Toby wrote:
... If a textbook project that wants to use material from Wikipedia, then it can make a decision that it wants this material more than the mere possibility of material under some other licence.
And where exactly is the material from this other license at? That type of long term planning is also really bizarre in the wiki world - where are the crystal balls we should use in order to find out what license this magical text will be under? However, what we have /right now/ is a HUGE open content resource that will almost certainly be ENORMOUS in a couple years. This is a prediction we can bank on.
If you have a specific use in mind for a large chunk of text, then this shouldn't be a very difficult choice to make!
Yep - use Wikipedia and public domain text as your primary resources (it is gotten us this far!). I still would like to know of /any/ other body of open content text at all comparable to Wikipedia that we could use for textbooks. Mixing and matching licenses will prevent the free exchange of text to and from Wikipedia and most madenly from between our textbooks! It is best to work with what we have right now and continually work with the copyleft viral license makers to make their licenses compatible with each other.
PLEASE let's not fork the project before it even starts.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com