Wikipedia talk:GFDL upgrade

message: :It's not going to happen, many users have just plainly left. What about anons? What about permissions already obtained from other sites? Dori | Talk 01:19, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
::Anons and registered users who haven't yet give permission, or users that have refused permission would be considered "GFDL-onlies" whose submissions would have to be worked around. I'm not sure what you mean by permissions already obtained from other sites. If it helps, a user who has submitted GFDL material that's copyrighted by someone else would have to refuse permission. In theory, they could give permission for each individual permission, but I think it would be better to just count them out entirely. Crazyeddie 01:58, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
::I believe Dori is speaking about the materials brought from outside with permission to use them under the terms of GFDL. They will remain GFDL, not dual licensed, unless someone contact the original copyright holder and get a new permission. Tomos 00:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dori

message: Several objections:
*Presenting registered users with a dialog box at their next login asking for permission to release pre-changeover submitted material under the Creative Commons (in addition to the GFDL).
:Some people, such as myself, don't ever log out, so would never see this unless their cookie was somehow damaged.
*The Wikimedia Foundation agrees to release material contributed by it under the Creative Commons.
:Why would they do that?
*Mark in the page histories which versions were submitted by  dual-licensers, and which were submitted GFDL-only. The CC and GFDL (or GNU) logos would be a good marker
:How do you plan on doing that?  Manually?  And what if the "version" consists of a one-character minor change?
*Also mark all versions before the first GFDL-only version with a “This version is licensed in its entirety under both the Creative Commons and GFDL.” notice.
:What is the first GFDL-only version?  The current Wikipedia, as we speak, is GFDL.  There is no first version.
*Mark all versions after the first GFDL-only version and before the first “liberated” version with a “This version may contain material that is only available under the GFDL.” notice.
:What does "liberated" mean?  And what if the article is GFDL only?  Do you somehow make it unviewable?  And why would you do that?
*If an article has had a GFDL-only submission in its history, have a link in the article saying “Portions of this article maybe available under the Creative Commons. Click here for a Creative Commons compatible version.”
:I still don't see how you plan on splitting the different edits out.
*The Creative Commons compatible page will be “seeded” with the last version of the article that hasn't been tainted by a GFDL-only submission. 
:I find the use of the term "tainted" highly offensive, and suggest you re-think not only your terminology, but your entire idea as to why you think this entire, man-hours intensive project is a good idea.
*If the first version of the article was GFDL-only, the page will start off blank. 
:STRONGLY oppose.  Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not the "Creative Commons Wikipedia."
*Since the exact moment when the CC version is just as good as the original is a matter of opinion, I suggest that registered users should report candidates to the sysops, who will then do the actual replacing. 
:Nice of you to volunteer the immense amount of work involved for us sysops to do.
As you may see from my above comments, I see no good coming of this project and must ask once again, just WHY do you think this is needed?  RickK 01:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RikK