View source for Interoperability between Creative Commons licenses and GFDL

'''UPDATE:''' Relicensing is now possible:

[http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20081110-00 Wikimedia and GFDL 1.3] copyrighteous Mon, 10 Nov 2008 

More detail at: 
* [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation LicenseVersion 1.3] 3 November 2008, at the Free Softare Foundation's website.
* [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/046996.html GFDL 1.3 Release] (Foundation-l posting by Erik Möller):
<blockquote>
We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with us
to develop this re-licensing language.

The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". This
section permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e.
wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to the
CC-BY-SA, under two key constraints:

* Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensed
after November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDL
content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as
well...)

* The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009.

Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by
any other party... 

* As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importing
external FDL content, unless they know for sure that it will
be migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future. 
</blockquote>
----


Interoperability between [[CC-by-sa]] and [[GFDL]] has been requested by the Wikimedia Foundation board, which in late November 2007 passed a resolution:
:The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. -- ''[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 Progress on license interoperability with Wikipedia], Mike Linksvayer, Creative Commons blog, December 1st, 2007.''

== Latest news ==

The Wikimedia Foundation:
<blockquote>will present a proposal for dual-licensing all Wikimedia projects currently using the GFDL, by January 15, 2009. It will be published on the [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l foundation-l] mailing list. This proposal will be discussed and revised through open community discussion, leading to an open vote among all active Wikimedia contributors (to be defined using similar criteria as the Board elections). If a majority of community members favor migration to CC-BY-SA, it will be implemented. -- [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers Licensing update/Questions and Answers] at Meta.

See also the Creative Commons blog post, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/11544 Wikipedia licensing Q&A posted], 15 Dec 2008.

Also watch for updates at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update Licensing update] at Meta.
== CC-by ==
[[CC-by]] is one-way-compatible with GFDL - meaning that CC-by content can be used in GFDL work, by not vice-versa. 

Source: James Grimmelmann, Associate Professor at New York Law School, (Institute for Information Law and Policy). ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-April/005473.html <nowiki>[cc-licenses]</nowiki> CC-BY=>CC-BY-SA/GFDL], Apr 19, 2007.)

See also [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-September/000329.html<nowiki>[Wikinews-l]</nowiki> The Wikinews Licensure Poll is closed], Sep 2005.

== Non-commercial licenses ==
No NC ([[Non-commercial]]) license can ever be compatible with [[GFDL]].

==Footnotes==
<small></references></small>

[[Category:License]]