Possible IMSLP transition from GFDL to CC-BY-SA

[imslp]

Hi all,

Due to the recent mass re-licensing of all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, I would like to propose a vote on IMSLP regarding the re-licensing of IMSLP from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. The deadline for eligibility is August 1st, 2009.

In addition to voting, I would like people to report any potential problems or objections to this change. I would also be grateful if IMSLP administrators and frequent contributors voice their opinion regardless of inclination on this issue.

CC-BY-SA is a license tailored to collaborative creative endeavors, while GFDL has its origins in the licensing of documentation for GPL-licensed software. IMSLP has previously elected to use GFDL mainly due to the desire for compatibility with Wikipedia. Legally, CC-BY-SA is much more suited in my opinion to wiki-based projects, as it does not have some of the oddities of the GFDL.

Yours,
Edward (Feldmahler)

[Yagan Kiely]

Didn't Wikipedia adopt both?

I'd definitely prefer Creative Commons. It is more legally sound and it is more established (people actually know what it means) and it has departments in many countries. Might I suggest NC also? I don't like the idea of another SMA.

[imslp]

Actually no, Wikipedia has only CC-BY-SA. Adopting NC may be troublesome later, because that would not be compatible with Wikipedia (i.e. text can enter IMSLP but not leave IMSLP).

[Yagan Kiely]

It can leave, but just not commercially.

[imslp]

Actually, not entirely. For example, if text on IMSLP is licensed under CC-NC-SA, that text cannot be used on Wikipedia, because that would be changing the text license, which is forbidden. Thus, even though Wikipedia is non-commercial, it cannot use text licensed under CC-NC-SA.

Furthermore, GFDL actually specifies only the possibility of relicensing under CC-BY-SA, and not CC-NC-SA.