2009/1/28 Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk>: > 2009/1/28 geni <geni...@gmail.com>: > >>> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait, >>> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to >>> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special >>> case? >>> >>> The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without >>> inventing extra problems! >> >> It is imported GFDL material. Which is a problem. Normaly we have very >> little imported stuff so not something I worry about overmuch but >> someone might want to give a heads up to the publishing company and >> author that we will be looking to switch it (and since it is imported >> we can't do that automagicaly). > > This is pretty silly. > > The author is... an active Wikipedia user, and has been for three and > a half years. All his GDFL contributions made to Wikipedia can be > relicensed without any fuss, but his writing first published elsewhere > under *exactly the same license* and then re-uploaded, by himself, > licensing his own intellectual property and ticking all the implicit > boxes in exactly the same way as if he had first written it here, > can't be? > > But even if it weren't, I'm stull confused over how we have the right > to use one set of GFDL v.1.2 or later contributions, and not the > other. It is, after all, *exactly the same license*...
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced, it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
