Eliminate GFDL?

[John Stephenson]

Assuming we go ahead and adopt CC-by-SA for articles currently licensed on CZ under the GFDL, then is there any reason for our project to support the GFDL at all?

The only reason I can think of is that there might be images on CZ that were licensed only under the GFDL. GFDL images from Wikipedia have, presumably, been re-licensed under CC-by-SA as well as article text.

[Caesar Schinas]

I do think that we should continue to allow a wide selection of licences for images, but I agree that non-CC text licences should be eliminated.

[Joe Quick]

Is there any reason to think that we might eventually want to incorporate material from sources other than Wikipedia that might be under the GDFL license?  If so, we should keep our options open. 

Images aren't really an issue since we already allow images under many different licenses.  They are already licensed separately from the text, so mixing and matching is no big deal.