Interoperability between Creative Commons licenses and GFDL: Difference between revisions
→CC-by: What, no ref tags? change to inline ref, but messy |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== CC-by == | == CC-by == | ||
It has been claimed that [[CC-by]] is one-way-compatible with GFDL,<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-September/000329.html [Wikinews-l] The Wikinews Licensure Poll is closed], Sep 2005</ref> meaning that CC-by content can be used in GFDL work, by not vice-versa. | It has been claimed that [[CC-by]] is one-way-compatible with GFDL,<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-September/000329.html [Wikinews-l] The Wikinews Licensure Poll is closed], Sep 2005</ref> meaning that CC-by content can be used in GFDL work, by not vice-versa. | ||
== Non-commercial licenses == | == Non-commercial licenses == | ||
Revision as of 00:48, 22 February 2008
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.[1]
When is this actually happening?
CC-by
It has been claimed that CC-by is one-way-compatible with GFDL,[2] meaning that CC-by content can be used in GFDL work, by not vice-versa.
Non-commercial licenses
No NC license can ever be compatible with GFDL.
Footnotes
</references>
- ↑ Progress on license interoperability with Wikipedia, Mike Linksvayer, Creative Commons blog, December 1st, 2007.
- ↑ [Wikinews-l The Wikinews Licensure Poll is closed], Sep 2005