You added the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Dual License category tag to my user page[1]. That's incorrect. I've only made a blanket license grant of a multitude of other licenses for "encyclopedia articles". That deliberatey excludes talk pages, all other non-encyclopedia namespaces and multimedia files. No current plans to change that because I'm doing it to limit the potential for some conduct I don't want to accept (not yours though) and that will require a GFDL license. Good project though! Jamesday 07:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I like what is being done with the CC licenses, and I didn't like all the petty inconsistencies that happended in free software with GPL incompatibilities with other free licenses, so I'm very sympathetic with the motives of the dual-license drive, but......but, I just plain don't like dual licensing. I half feel like saying sorry, but there you are. ---- Charles Stewart 21:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing up this point. I feel a bit ashamed of the fact you let me know that I am among the 1000 Wikipedians with most edits although I should use my time to finally get my diploma. As for the licenses I see the point for images because each image has its own page and can easily get attached its own information concerning the license. For text I do not think it makes any sense to have different users with different licenses. I do not believe in public domain for wikipedia as I have already gotten several advertisements for apparently commercial online encyclopedia that seemed to steel most of their content from wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 19:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little overwhelmed by the huge upswell of different licensing options that have appeared, and all the problems/incompatibilities they've created. Probably wouldn't have noticed but for your request to multi-license, so thanks for bringing this stuff to my attention. Do you think it will settle down or is this simply going to be a fact of life from now on? Waveguy 20:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your infomation about multi licencing, and sorry for the delay, I have left the wiki community alone since someone implied my work tedious. How can you licence original work if its changed the next day? The whole concept of gnu fails to account for the fact that the original work ceases to exist as soon as a single change has been made to it by another user. As far as I understand the law my items in their original context will allways be my copyright, but I allow such changes to be made under gnu terms...What difference then does it make to have multi licencing? I have found numerous websites copying my work from wikipedia, this angers me and pleases me at the same time, because I am please to share my knowledge, but at the same time feel I should be granted some acknowledgment for the effort..Tell me more and I may return to the fold, all the best. Faedra
Sorry for taking so long in responding to your message - I've been tied up with other things and didn't have the time really to look at licenses and decide for ages. I have realised now that I don't really care what happens to my contributions beyond the pedia and don't desire attribution just "for the sake of having your name on a site". So, I've gone for the simplest option and PDed all my contribs. Cheers, and good look with your drive. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 23:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. As I said on my user page I don't edit here any more - but was looking up something and I saw your note. I will happily dual license all my contributions and have added the tag to my ex-user page. I hope this helps. Secretlondon.
Hi, thanks for replying to my talk page about the spamming issue. I have seen some comments left by you in others talk pages about to multi-license, and you had mentioned that 90% of people asked agreed. Is there any effort underway to add it as a checkbox when editing - it seems like something that would save a lot of people time. --Paraphelion 03:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree to MiltiLicense my contributions! It's a good idea. I`ve put a tag on my page. --Ce garcon 06:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am happy for my text contributions to be in the public domain. I wish to retain some copyleft over my graphics (photographs, maps etc.). I am willing to multilicence them. Although I have been active recently, I have not made a contribution now for a couple of months. When I return to activity I will follow this up. --CloudSurfer 02:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to multi-license my contributions. See User:Jor/Copyrights for details: after some deliberation I have decided upon using MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any, except for article talk pages, wikipedia namespace, and my user pages. Jordi·✆ 09:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Great idea. I have added a copyright statement to my user page using the DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual template. Lyndafis 17:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think I'll stick with the GFDL, thanks anyways. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Basically - what Ground said! ;) Apologies for my lateness, but yeah I'm fine wiht having my edits public domain-ed. This is about sharing knowledge, not hoarding my text for no apparant reason. Though I do have one question - if I put something up in my personal userspace, that is copywrited and I state it is copywrited, does the banner about Public domain-ing affect that as well? -Erolos 17:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll multi-license. CMC 01:11, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
I don't remember making significant contributions to U.S. state/county/city articles. I agree to double licence my contributions under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Taw 16:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ditto for me also. I agree to double license my contributions to US state/county/city articles and any others that you feel, under GFDL and cc-by-sa. --Numerousfalx 07:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree to double license my contributions to US state/country/city articles under GFDL and CC-BY-SA, although I don't quite frequently edit these articles in the English Wikipedia. (Or does that include all Wikipedias too?)--Formulax 03:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like to multi-license my contributions as well. It's sad that all the open-content places can't all share our information. I don't think I've contributed much to the US geography. moink 22:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article on Wikipedia under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA 1.0. I am reluctant to license all my contributions under that license, because of the warranty clause that was removed in version 2.0. Wmahan. 19:27, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
Sorry about the really late reply. I've decided to keep using the GFDL and just monitor the progress of this multi-licensing effort. Sorry and good luck! SoLando 21:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying earlier as I was performing Haji. However, here is it:- I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}Yosri 13:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How can I find the drive? User:Patricknoddy 16:55 February 14, 2005 (EDT)
Okay, I've read your simplified version. How do I activate the Option 1?- B-101 16:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been away from WP for a long while, so sorry for the delay on answering. I'll stay with GFDL only. User:Nabla#Copyright.--Nabla 02:13, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Sorry for taking such a long time to get back to you (multilicensing drive). I won't support multilicensing at this stage. Kokiri 01:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-2.5, WikimediaNoLicensing Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 04:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
I chose not to multi-license. Jgardner 16:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
