2008/11/16 Milos Rancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am making now one site (about pseudoscience) which I want to > double-license, so materials may be used in the future at Wikipedia. > As it is my site, I may make whichever, partial licensing, but I > realized that there is one very stupid problem for which I think that > answer exists, but I would like to hear your (and, especially, Mike's > opinion): > > I want to import some Wikipedia materials. Usually, it would be > translations from the Wikipedia in English in Serbian. (For all other > materials I am explicitly asking for double licensing [otherwise, I > wouldn't import them], so this is not a problem.) But, if I import > Wikipedia materials *now*, I may do it only by licensing it under > GFDL. Again, this is not problem related to my site, because I may > declare that such pages are GFDL-only. However, I want to allow that > derivative works from such pages may be used on Wikipedia (in > Serbian), again. > > My common sense explanation would be that I may keep such pages > temporary as GFDL-only and to allow GFDL/CC-BY-SA after Wikipedia > switch to double licensing. But, I am not a lawyer and I am wondering > is it possible to interpret the whole licensing process like that.
Since you could delete the GFDL-only version and remake it as a dual licensed version after the switchover (assuming we do switchover), I can't see how there could a problem. (Assuming you are the only person to modify it, otherwise you need to be careful about what licenses the modifications are released under.) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
