On 25 January 2011 11:26, Alison M. Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- "Thomas Dalton" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Very doubtful indeed. Wikipedia might, conceivably, be considered a >> trusted third party, but there is no way the rest of world would and >> we can't accept content that is licensed to Wikipedia only. > > I would think it likely that as the BBC have already made the decision, in > principle, to send h2g2 on its way then expanding the licence to drop any NC > requirement would be a highly probable parting gift. Certainly worth asking > them to change the licence anyway.
They aren't the copyright holder, though, so I don't think they can change the license. They have a very broad license to use it themselves and to re-license it to trusted third parties, but they don't have the authority (as far as I can tell) to release it under a free licence. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
