If moving to CC is an option, then we should look at this soon - possibly encourage as many users as possible (including Joshua's students, while he's still got them in his class) to release their work under a dual license, i.e. both GFDL and CC-by-sa. This would mean we could move to CC-by-sa later with less difficulty, if we choose.
For myself, I will license my own posts under GFDL and CC-by-sa, and will encourage others to do likewise.
One issue: If I copy material to Appropedia under a license that's compatible with Appropedia, but incompatible with the other of the two licenses I am using, is it a matter of noting in the edit summary that this content is under that particular license? (E.g. in the present situation, if I copied GFDL material to Appropedia, but I'm dual licensed... the CC part of the dual license cannot apply to the copied material, so I'm guessing I should make that explicit somehow, any time I do such copying.)
If moving to CC is an
If moving to CC is an option, then we should look at this soon - possibly encourage as many users as possible (including Joshua's students, while he's still got them in his class) to release their work under a dual license, i.e. both GFDL and CC-by-sa. This would mean we could move to CC-by-sa later with less difficulty, if we choose.
For myself, I will license my own posts under GFDL and CC-by-sa, and will encourage others to do likewise.
One issue: If I copy material to Appropedia under a license that's compatible with Appropedia, but incompatible with the other of the two licenses I am using, is it a matter of noting in the edit summary that this content is under that particular license? (E.g. in the present situation, if I copied GFDL material to Appropedia, but I'm dual licensed... the CC part of the dual license cannot apply to the copied material, so I'm guessing I should make that explicit somehow, any time I do such copying.)
-- Chriswaterguy (wiki homepage)