[Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

Tue Oct 17 20:58:36 UTC 2006

> Roger, could you expand on this? I'm not following how it works. I
> understand that dual-licensing works for software because companies
> may not want to copyleft their work, and because just source code
> isn't actually all that useful minus maintenance and support and
> documentation and other things that companies like Redhat provide for
> money, but how does this apply to regular old content? Is the GFDL as
> 'viral' as the GPL in regard to modification and incorporation, and is
> not being GFDL valuable enough to various parties that the relevant
> corporations would still realize their desired sums?
>
> --Gwern

Although gmaxwell will eat me, yes. GFDL is _viral_ too. The bigger trick
of GFDL and which may make some parties to still pay for it is that you need
to include a copy of the GFDL (several pages). If it hasn't other license, 
they
must contact you (and get an agreement) to use it without such terms. 