Should a non-WMF project go for dual-licensing? I know this is a Wikimedia Foundation list, but the clarifications needed here will be helpful to Wikimedia people as well.
Specifically, I'm trying to understand whether there is a significant downside to dual-licensing - comments by Erik and others suggest there is, and this option is only being pursued as it was part of the agreement with FSF. I'm not clear why - this looks to me like an elegant solution that gives more freedom to the people re-using the content. My question in full is here (but it seems to be a quiet page): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Should_a_non-WMF_project_go_for_dual-licensing.3F Thanks. -- Chris Watkins (a.k.a. Chriswaterguy) Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives. identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia blogs.appropedia.org I like this: five.sentenc.es _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
