I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much - we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere - but that's not a violation since they'd be the copyright holder and can relicense it however they want. I doubt there are any similar cases which do violate the terms, but I'd love some help checking that.
-Mike On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 07:36 -0700, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an > > abundance of good information. > > > > Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather > > than June 15? > > > > I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no > > time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become > > impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be > > able to import materials currently under the GFDL (which will become > > impossible as soon as we decide to switch over licenses), but it will > > also no longer be possible for currently GFDL massively-collaborative > > sites to choose to make the same switchover that we are making (the > > GFDL provision is only valid until August 1). > > > > There are hundreds of educational sites with excellent material that > > have chosen their current GFDL license in order to be compatible with > > Wikipedia. Some of them will not be able to decide to switch > > licensing terms by August 1; others do not qualify for the > > license-switching option in the first place. We should make a serious > > devoted effort to reach all of them -- including informing readers > > about what is going on and how they can help preserve compatibility of > > license with their own sites. > > Three points: > > 1) We'd like to have all our copyright statements, terms of use, image > templates, and whatever else updated before the August 1st deadline. > That way there is no ambiguity about whether content was relicensed in > a timely fashion. Doing that, including the various translations, > will require a significant lead time. > > 2) The migration is an incentive to other sites to also relicense. > Given that, it behooves us to get moving early enough that other sites > will also have time to react before the deadline. Seeing the changes > we make will also give them a blueprint to what they may need to do. > Incidentally, the news coverage of this event so far has been quite > limited, which makes it more important that we have an outreach effort > to communicate what is happening to other GFDL projects that may wish > to change. > > 3) Content importing from GFDL sites (which are not also CC-BY-SA, and > do not get relicensed by their owners) is already impossible now. One > of the provisions of the relicensing is that externally published > content (i.e. material originally published somewhere other than a WMF > wiki) can only be relicensed if it was already in our site before > November 1, 2008. Any GFDL text imported after that date will > probably have to be deleted. This doesn't happen very often on the > Wikipedias, but it is a bigger concern for Wikibooks and Wikisource. > > -Robert Rohde > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
