[Wikimedia-l] License issue on GPL and CC-by-sa mix up

[Platonides]

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Unfortunately, this dictionary is under GPL which is a well known free
> license (but a strange choice for a non-software project). So I would
> like to know, can I mix up a GPL content with a CC-by-sa page (in cases
> where such a page already exist), and more generaly can I add GPL
> content into the wiktionary.
No.

> If no, could we approach their community and ask them for a relicensing
> under CC-by-sa, so we could add their great work into our wiktionaries.
> I also send this message to email I found to contact them[2].
Sure, that would be great.


On 23/02/13 11:51, Andre Engels wrote:
> No. What you stumbled upon is a well-known (at least to me) problem of
> share-alike licences: The only thing they are two-way compatible with
> is themselves. Even if one would have a different license with exactly
> the same meaning, it would not be possible to move texts from that
> license to CC-BY-SA (or GPL or whatever) or vice versa.

There are a few cases where sharealike licenses include provisions for
compatible licenses. Sadly, the license owners don't seem too interested
in advacing in that front.

See for instance the list at
http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses ...which is empty.