[Textbook-l] Dual-licensed wikibooks

[Derbeth]

Dnia Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:55:50 +0200, mike.lifeguard napisał(a):

> I'm wondering how we reconcile situations like
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Uim and
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Scratch/Content_License

> These are GFDL plus PD and CC-by-sa respectively. But we have no indication
> whatsoever that contributors to the book (except Swift and Rob respectively)
> have agreed to this arrangement. Unless there is some compelling argument
> here, I'm of the view that the non-GFDL bit needs to be removed ASAP.

I fully agree with you. If an anonymous user comes to a Wikibooks page from Google search results page and makes an edit, he/she sees only notice that "all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence". I think noone would prove in any court that such anonymous user agrees to license his/her edits under Creative Commons license as well.

There is no way to retain dual licensing on Wikibooks, so we should remove any templates stating that a book is dual-licensed. However, we could leave templates saying, for example, that revisions before x May,June etc. 200x are dual-licensed, or that original version (URL to donated book here) was dual-licensed.

-- 
Derbeth
Jabber id: derbeth at jabber.wp.pl

Wikisłownik to więcej niż słownik! Sprawdź: http://pl.wiktionary.org/

Opera - the fastest browser on Earth! http://www.opera.com/