Re: contents license

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:07 -0500, Paul Cutler wrote:
> Anyone have any insight on how Wikipedia did it?

There is a paragraph just for the wikipedia transition in the GFDL 1.3.
Wikipedia was licensed with GFDL 1.2 + newer. The newer version said "if
you're wikipedia you can relicense to CC-BY-SA 3.0".

Or, from the license FAQ: [0]

Q. Exactly what material can be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0?
        A. In order to license an FDL-covered work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, a
        few conditions must be met:
              * The work must be available under the terms of FDL 1.3,
                which provides you with this permission. If the work was
                released under the terms of “the GNU Free Documentation
                License, version 1.2 or (at your option) any later
                version,” then it meets this criteria.
              * The work must not have any “Cover Texts” or “Invariant
                Sections.” These are optional features in all versions
                of the FDL.
              * If the work was originally published somewhere other
                than a public wiki, it must have been added to a wiki
                (or some other kind of web site where the general public
                could review and edit the materials) before November 1,

From the license [1]:
"The operator of an MMC [Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site] Site
may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same
site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for

Florian Ludwig <dino phidev org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]