Forum:GFDL to CC-BY-SA relicensing or dual-licensing?

Forums: Village pump → GFDL to CC-BY-SA relicensing or dual-licensing?
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Wikipedia is switching to multi-licensing with CC-BY-SA as of June 15, under version 1.3 of the GFDL. Are WoWWiki users aware of this, and planning to follow by the August 1 cutoff? (See also Wikia's forum, WikiFur relicensing.) --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [. . . and, to clarify, by dualmulti-licensing I meant "switching to CC-BY-SA while optionally continuing to parallel-license non-imported content under the GFDL", not "all articles must be CC-BY-SA and GFDL" (which would restrict import options). --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)]

It seems fairly likely we will too. (I don't know of many people particularly knowledgeable about/interested in licensing for it to really come up much in discussion here :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a little sad. :-( People spent so much time making this, you'd think they'd care more about how it was used. Makes me wonder if it might have been just as popular under a "founder gets exclusive license" copyright! --GreenReaper^(talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha, well, I doubt it :P We'd have run into trouble with Blizzard with any non-free license, tbh. It's probably likely the Blizzard issue that means we don't generally get into discussions about it in the first place, as we are somewhat subject to their whims in the end. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, WoWWiki is now a CC-BY-SA wiki - see w:Forum:Licensing update June 19, 2009 for the general Wikia announcement. Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)