Re: GPL in wiki: [RFR] draft for "DebianWiki new license"
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Frank Lin PIAT<email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 00:43 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:41:25AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> > On Tue,16.Jun.09, 08:43:34, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
>> > >
>> > > BTW, I am not completely sure that one can write a document with some
>> > > paragraphs under GPL and some other under CC-BY-SA, and have a license
>> > > statement like "some parts on this documents are licensed under GPL and
>> > > some parts are licensed under CC-BY-SA".
>> > I don't think this is possible. Maybe if the GPL parts can exist without
>> > the CC-BY-SA parts, otherwise you have to distribute it all under the
>> > GPL (which CC-BY-SA prevents).
>> FYI: "Debian Reference" origin contents has been removed and it has been
>> reintegrated to www.debian.org under DDP.
>> Unless someone else had GPL pages, you may not need to worry about my
>> old pages.
> I think we should not only be concerned about "known" GPL projects that
> could be dual licensed (like DR, DebianEdu, NewInLenny). we should
> consider the contents that could/should be merged various GPL
> Still, you raise an important point.
What about the same license as wikipedia?
Wikipedia changes its license to
what is left of gfdl
"Specifically, the Wikimedia Foundation proposal is to amend site-wide
1. to make all content currently distributed under the GNU Free
Documentation License (with “later version” clause) additionally
available under CC-BY-SA 3.0, as explicitly allowed through the latest
version of the GFDL;
2. to require continued dual-licensing of new community edits in
this manner, but allow CC-BY-SA-only content from third parties
(However, GFDL-only content from third parties is no longer allowed);
3. to inform re-users that content which includes imported
CC-BY-SA-only information cannot be used under the GFDL.