I asked this same question few time ago, even on IRC and they resent the mail to the Communications Committee of the WMF. Here's the answer I got:
> Mike Godwin wrote: >> >> Assuming I understand the question correctly, any currently >> compatible wiki could adopt the new GFDL/CC harmonized license >> within the time window specified by FSF. >> >> >> --Mike >> >> >> >> On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Mark Pellegrini wrote: >> >>> Today in IRC, Isaac Barrera from Astronomipedia (I am cc'ing him >>> on this email) came into IRC and asked an important question. With >>> the new escape clause in the GFDL and possible relicensing of WMF >>> projects, he asked what Wikipedia-compatible 3rd-party wikis >>> should do to stay compatible with Wikipedia. This is information >>> that should be posted prominently on the WMF website. >>> >>> -Mark But I don't think it's clear enough. El mar, 10-03-2009 a las 14:08 -0600, Chris Watkins escribió: > 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. > > -- Isaac _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
