Phil Boswell wrote:
"Timwi" <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote in
message
news:d7ajq0$887$1@sea.gmane.org...
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image
could be used on
Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything
else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore
it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
Am I the only person stunned by the complete lack of logical progression
here?
A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia
B) Therefore it can't be.
Suppose I write an article and then allow you to "use it" on Wikipedia
under the restriction that you may not make any modifications to it. It
is hopefully clear to you now that the text cannot be used in Wikipedia,
even though I gave permission to "use it".
It is only your summarisation that reduces it to the point where it
seems contradictory (but isn't actually). Just because someone agreed
for something to be used on Wikipedia, does not necessarily mean that it
can be (or should be) used on Wikipedia. In a way, by saying that it is
contradictory, you're only stating that you don't understand it.
Timwi