CCL vs. GFDL[edit]
Is it really okay to relicense GFDL content under the license we're using here? --April Arcus 17:44, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
- I stand corrected, but use is permissible under the GDFL license instead, same parameters. Spencerian 17:48, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
- Yes, we could explicitly state that this page is licensed under the GFDL, whereas the rest of the Wiki is under CC-NC-SA, however this presents some major problems:
- CC-NC-SA work from the rest of the wiki cannot be incorporated into a GFDL article due to the NC clause.
- Portions of this article cannot be used elsewhere in the wiki for the same reason.
- Multiple licenses for different pages is very confusing, as we have just demonstrated.
- The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --April Arcus 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
- To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a reliable source. --April Arcus 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
- Ow, and ouch. The rewrite is not difficult. But sourcing for TOS stuff is more so, as you know, since this data has become electronically searchable long after TOS has left the air, and that material is likely conpromised with fan-fiction, games, and the like. For this, TOS episodes will have to remain the final source since it is unlikely to find official stats from a show long-gone, and I doubt Universal will be talking about anything other than RDM BSG. Will have to apply the KISS principle to this and many other TOS articles for this reason. Spencerian 18:11, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
- Yes, we could explicitly state that this page is licensed under the GFDL, whereas the rest of the Wiki is under CC-NC-SA, however this presents some major problems: