On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:28, PCMan <pcman.tw@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is, we don't have the rights to relicense others' work.
However, it's impossible to contact all the people who had ever edited our wiki.
So how to do it legally?

Actually, the FSF has solved this problem. The licenses (GFDL as well as CC) specify that content can be reused under that license or a compatible one.

Usually they are not compatible, but in this case they are, because after long negotiations between FSF, CC and the Wikimedia Foundation, FSF released GFDL 1.3 which has a special provision (section 11 of the license) allowing work on a wiki it to be relicensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, as long as it is done by the end of July.

This section specifies that the site operator can do it. So, just as you can upgrade from GFDL 1.2 to 1.3, you can also relicense as CC-BY-SA 3.0 (under these terms, before this time limit is up).

Chris


2009/7/25 Chris Watkins <chriswaterguy@appropedia.org>:
>
> 2009/7/22 Q/Medical-Wei <medicalwei@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi all,
>> Recently, I received some messages about converting the wiki license
>> to CC-By-SA 3.0. However, are there any reason that we must do this?
>
> Most wikis now use CC-BY-SA, including most of the Linux wikis I've looked
> at. CC-BY-SA is the more standard license for written content. I think it's
> a good idea to change - but actually the Wikimedia dual-license model is
> even better:
>
> The dual-licensing option used by Wikimedia is probably the best option for
> a Linux wiki, where there is still some interest in GFDL. It's a little
> complex to explain - see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing_update
>
> In Wikimedia's case, this means that the end-user can choose either license,
> *except* where someone has added CC-BY-SA-only content to a page, which
> makes that page single licensed. It is the end-user's responsibility to
> check.
>
> In theory GFDL could be chosen instead, so GFDL content could be added, but
> CC-BY-SA content could not be. As I've said, though, CC-BY-SA is the more
> common license, so I'd suggest this as the default.
>
> So, my suggestion is to use the same variation of a dual-license as
> Wikimedia.
>
>
> In case anyone is wondering, the operator of the wiki can make the decision
> to change license, until the end-of-July deadline. See
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html#section11 for this and any other
> details.
>
> If there's any uncertainty about this, with the deadline coming up for the
> license transition (end of July), then there is a solution to give more
> time: switch to a simple dual license. This means all content is licensed
> under both GFDL and the CC-BY-SA licenses - but we can't add material from
> other sources (if it's only under one of the licenses). Then when a decision
> has been made to go with a particular option, it can be switched.
>
> Let me know if anything is unclear.
>
>>
>> About DFSG, documents licensed with GFDL without invariant sections
>> are DFSG-free.
>> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.28GFDL.29
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Medical-Wei/Q
>> p.s. Chris, We've met in Ecole Cafe :D
>
> I remember you - playing the African drum :-)
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Watkins
>
> Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.
>
> identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
> blogs.appropedia.org
>
> I like this: five.sentenc.es
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lxde-list mailing list
> Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
>
>



--
Chris Watkins

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es