On 9/18/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote: > "I have a
suggestion from someone very high up in the Creative Commons > organization that we
should dual-license (CC and GFDL), which I simply > hadn't thought of. I'm
inclined to think it's a good idea." > > I'd like to know how that
would be compatible with working from > Wikipedia content.
I can only assume it would mean they'd have to accept a mix of dual-licensed and
GFDL-only articles for the foreseeable future, the same as if Wikipedia were to implement
a switch to dual-licensing.
All material imported from Wikipedia would be labelled GFDL-only by default, and all new
articles would be required to be dual-licensed. Imported material could be switched to a
"dual-license" label if someone on their side confirms that the relevant
Wikipedia editors have actually released it under CC or public domain.
The main downside of this process, seems to me, would be that one wouldn't be able to
freely lift text from one article to another within the same wiki; you'd always have
to check if the licenses match. Note that lifting text like this technically causes
copyright problems already on Wikipedia, unless one is careful to provide authorship
information.
-Nat Krause
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new
Yahoo.com