On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM, David Claughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 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.) > > As an owner of an (experimental) partial fork of WP, I'm also interested > in this issue. > > My interpretation is that the migration clauses in GFDL 1.3 apply to all > wikis, not just Wikimedia's. So anyone running a GFDL wiki (assuming > "or later version" text is intact), can migrate the content to cc-by-sa > anytime up to the deadline. This includes WP content that has been > modified on my wiki. > > Obviously to do so before Wikimedia has decided if it is going to do so > would be a bad idea if one wants to continue to bring updates across > from WP (as this would be impossible after the deadline has passed).
The problem is that my site can't be treated as a "massive collaborative site" (or whatever the name is) because it is a strictly editorial work. As the date for importing GFDL-only texts passed, as well as because of the first reason, I am not sure that I would be able to use any of transitional conditions. But, Thomas gave a good answer how to solve it; however, the licensing issue for me is an easier one because I am translating articles, which means that I don't need to care to any minor change and to be very sure that I wouldn't have much more job after the migration than to rewrite dates of translation. At the other side, I think that your wiki may be treated as a "massive collaborative site", which may be inside of transitional terms. But, again, it would be good to hear Mike for such cases. > Also, AIUI the dual-license thing is a private arrangement between the > FSF and Wikimedia? Therefore I do not have to honour it - I could in > theory migrate to cc-by-sa only? However this would make it difficult > or impossible to bring updates on my wiki back over into Wikipedia (so I > probably won't do this - I want to maintain bidirectional sharing) According to the license conditions, you are able to do so. While I understand why CC-BY-SA-only materials may be imported, I agree with you that the best option is to leave sites double-licensed, if possible. In the cases of small sites with very strict editorial work it is possible to leave materials straight dual-licensed, while any massive collaborative site should switch to Wikipedia-like dual licensing (which means that CC-BY-SA-only texts may be imported). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
