CCL vs. GFDL
Is it really okay to relicense GFDL content under the license we're using here? --Peter Farago 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. --Peter Farago 17:52, 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: