[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

Mon Nov 3 22:47:14 UTC 2008

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
>> 2008/11/3 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>:
>>> The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions
>>> complicate situation a lot
>>
>> Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary
>> motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
>
> I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the
> primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added
> bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use?
> There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle
> of relicensing for it).

I think that the number of CC-BY-SA books is significant enough for
incorporation them into Wikibooks. Wikiversity may profit from
CC-BY-SA, too.

However, counting the fact that some WBs and WVs are CC-BY-SA-only,
wouldn't it be more reasonable to switch those two projects to
CC-BY-SA only and to leave *Wikipedia* as straight dual-licensed?
Generally, Wikipedia content is the most important production place
for encyclopedic work, while other projects are not so. This means
that Wikipedia should be able to give as more as possible, while other
projects should calculate what is the best for them.