[Textbook-l] different open content licenses

[Jimmy Wales]

Toby Bartels wrote:
> The Creative Commons SA licence, in contrast, has no such problems.
> It is by any objective measure the superior licence; however, we
> really should license Wikibooks disjunctively with the GNU FDL, so
> that books can borrow the substantial material from Wikipedia if
> useful.

I don't think disjunctive licensing solves the license incompatibility
issues.  We'll be taking content from Wikipedia (GNU FDL) and then
offering it under *either* GNU FDL or CC-SA.  Suppose someone tries to
re-use the content under CC-SA rather than GNU FDL, how does that not
violate the provisions of use for the solely-FDL content?

Maybe this will work, though, but we need to think hard about the
details.

If we were starting wikipedia from scratch today, I would prefer to
create a wikipedia license that says "You can redistribute this
content under GNU FDL, CC-SA, or additional free licenses that may be
specified from time to time on this page."

But isn't it too late for that?