Wikipedia talk:Multi-licensing

message: Ram-Man has said "Wikipedia can never fully or officially dual-license all of its stuff. See Wikipedia:Multi-licensing for more information. Part of the problem is that this can't be done automatically." and I tended to agree since I was not really aware of any easy way to have a piece of work released under multiple licenses having multiple authors.  However, I believe that this interesting article on metalicensing may offer insight and solutions to people who would like Wikipedia expanded beyond the GNU FDL and some of the problems this particular license has.
As I mentioned, Newsforge has an interesting article on how to 'metalicense' a work so it is covered by multiple licenses.  If we could have Wikipedia licensed under both the GNU FDL and a CC license I believe it would encourage people who have reservations about the GNU FDL's flaws to come aboard.  
The author of this article also has a webpage up, released under a CC license in case you'd like to share it, here about metalicensing which goes into greater detail than the Newsforge article. --ShaunMacPherson 04:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metalicensing 

message: Having just added the  message to my own user page, I note that the template's header says: "Multi-licensed with any Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License" - but that the body of the template text specifically mentions four licences (the GFDL and three CC licences). The newish Share-Alike v2.5  isn't mentioned at all, so what's the status of that licence as far as multilicensing goes? Loganberry | Talk 14:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that all CC licenses are forwards-compatible; if your stuff is available under version 2.0 it's available under 2.5 as well (though not vice versa). (This hidden detail is one of many reasons you should read the full legal code and not trust the "human-readable summary.") --Graue 02:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So whats the difference between v2.0 and v2.5? - NickC 17:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly... some general clarifications and improvements, I guess. Their licenses are so insanely long bugs must be inevitable. --Graue 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  v2.5? 

message: Am I the only one that feels it is impossible to license your work under the GFDL and release it into the public domain?  To release something under the GFDL, it must be copyrighted, and if it's copyrighted it can't be in the public domain.  Thoughts? 
--Superm401 | Talk 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
: License != copyright.  A PD work was copyrighted by its author, the author just says he abrogates all his rights to it.  So the author can take one copy and place it in PD, and take another copy and license it as GFDL.
: That said, this is essentially nonsensical, because anybody can take the PD version and do anything they like to it — this means GFDL can't be enforced and there's no point in licensing it as such. Jpatokal 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Copyright status exists by work, not by copy.  The idea of placing one copy in the public domain and retaining copyright (and therefore the ability to license) for a different copy is nonsense.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multilicensing into Public Domain 

message: I don't know why the only dual-licensing options that have been considered are with (or include) the ShareAlike versions of the CC licenses. I am not comfortable with forward-forcing licenses; and I am content dual licensing with simple good old CC-By.  To that end, I've added Template:DualLicenseWithCC-By into the mix. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only SA? 

message: How does this pan out in relation to images, specifically?
pfctdayelise 14:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're excluded.  I've been asking why for a year, and have yet to receive an answer. Jpatokal 10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: This page needs some updating in order to reflect the new 3.0 versions of Creative Commons' licenses. Then again, how much compatible will it be for multi-licensing? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to move to CC 3.0 

message: Do you think anyone would find it objectionable?  In principle, I don't see why I couldn't also put this image under some license that said "Send $1 to Charity X" or "Free for plastering onto the sides of buses for non-Commercial purposes", but I just have this gut feeling someone'd raise a stink.  WilyD 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can license your own images however you want.  What you're describing is in between free licenses and public domain licensing, and editors use both of those with no complaints. — Omegatron 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-Licensing with unfree licenses

message: :Category:Public domain license is up for deletion/renaming/discussion. A couple of concerns have been brought up about the messy implementation of multi-licensing templates in userspace. Any input would be appreciated. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Public_domain_license]]