[Textbook-l] Citizendium License (Was: [EWW] EditWikipediaWeek)

[Peter van Londen]

Hi

On Wikibooks-NL we work with a double license GFDL and CC-BY-SA.
No problems have arisen until now (but we are not that big).

Older books have a template with GFDL on every page.
Imported stuff (from Wikipedia) gets a template GFDL-Wikipedia

With a bot all pages on Time 0 (when we changed to double-licensing) were
marked. We have asked all contributors to retro license there changes so
that certain books started before Time 0 have now been double-licensed as
well. Most contributors agreed.

There are off course compatibility problems with importing, but until now it
was workable with templates.

New pages/books are all with double license as stated to the contributor
with every edit.

So it is workable (but not easy).

Kind regards, Londenp

2007/11/21, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>:
>
> The discussion on Wikibooks is not to use License A or License B, but
> instead to use License A or License A & B. We do mandate that all
> books be released under the GFDL, we are wondering if there is the
> possibilities for some books to additionally cross-license with
> CC-BY-SA-xx. The ramifications are:
> 1) if the book is on Wikibooks, all future edits must be
> cross-licensed accordingly
> 2) If the book content is merged in to another book on Wikibooks that
> is GFDL-only, it can be taken as GFDL.
> 3) if an editor wants to use the book under CC-BY-SA-xx only, he would
> have to fork the book to another location
> In lieu of a project-wide licensing scheme, maybe something like a new
> namespace could be created that would exclusively house books that are
> cross-licensed? It would be trivial to change the copyright warning on
> the edit page to show a different licensing message in different
> namespaces.
>
> Maybe we (the royal we, the WMF) need to put some pressure on the FSF
> to create a new GFDL version that is not so inhibitive as what we are
> currently using. Our copyright notice already states that content is
> released under "all future versions of the GFDL", so the transition
> would be transparent. Since WMF is one of the biggest users of the
> GFDL, i think we could exert that kind of pressure.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>