WOW! This is SO GREAT! -- Evan 20:16, 1 Nov 2003 (PST)
Sorry Evan, why did you remove my GFDL agreement??? I think it is my right to agree to different licences and actualy, you have proposed that yourself:
That said, you are welcome to label your contributions as being dual-licensed, as long as you're not basing them on other people's by-sa licensed work. -- Evan 12:47, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)
-- Hansm 08:00, 2003 Nov 2 (PST)
Moved from the article by Evan
Licence note: The author explicitly agrees to the publication under the terms of the GFDL.
NOTE: Once another author besides HansM started working on this article, they had to choose one of the two licenses he made it available under: either the GFDL or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. That contributor was me (Evan). If I had chosen to use the GFDL, it would mean that either a) we would have to delete the article from Wikitravel, since other contributors could no longer make derived works based on the by-sa license, or b) we would have to figure out a way in our software to mark articles as GFDL-only.
I didn't want to hassle with it, so the derived work I made is under the CC-BY-SA license. Let me reiterate: according to the provisions of the GFDL and by-sa themselves, someone deriving a new work from a dual-licensed work must pick one and only one of those licenses to use for the derived work. I chose by-sa, for the reasons outlined in Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL as well as from pure laziness -- I don't want to have to hack the MediaWiki software to track multiple licenses and the dual-licensing problem.
Hansm's last dual-licensed version is here: http://www.wikitravel.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=German_phrasebook&oldid=2581. Anyone is welcome to derive GFDL'd work from that -- but please don't upload it to Wikitravel, as it's not possible with our software right now.
Ok, Evan. That seems to be convincing. Anyway, it realy would be a great goal to find some possibility to implement dual licensing features. -- Hansm 08:23, 2003 Nov 2 (PST)