>
> Isn't it the case that, when someone posts content to Wikipedia, they
> are releasing it under GFDL, regardless of any other license they may
> also choose to release it under? So, even if the content in question
> were clearly labeled as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even CC-BY-NC, it is also
> released under GFDL. With the exception of putting something into PD
> (or some other less restrictive license than GFDL), it just doesn't
> matter what other restrictions may be claimed, it is still released
> under GFDL. Excepting, of course, content posted without the knowledge
> or permission of the copyright holder.
Given the way you say it, I would say yes...
> Isn't it the case that, when someone posts content to Wikipedia, they
> are releasing it under GFDL, regardless of any other license they may
> also choose to release it under? So, even if the content in question
> were clearly labeled as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even CC-BY-NC, it is also
> released under GFDL. With the exception of putting something into PD
> (or some other less restrictive license than GFDL), it just doesn't
> matter what other restrictions may be claimed, it is still released
> under GFDL. Excepting, of course, content posted without the knowledge
> or permission of the copyright holder.
Given the way you say it, I would say yes...