Difference between revisions of "Interoperability between Creative Commons licenses and GFDL"

From Creative Commons
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(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>

  1. Progress on license interoperability with Wikipedia, Mike Linksvayer, Creative Commons blog, December 1st, 2007.
  2. [Wikinews-l The Wikinews Licensure Poll is closed], Sep 2005