On Sat, 28 May 2005, Timwi wrote: I figured some (even most) people here may have this position. I'm a Sysadmin who has been working almost exclusively with F/OSS for more than 11 years so have a good background in the licencing issues. It is from this basis that I make these comments: I think it is important to remember that most of the people in the world have not even considered or heard of the issues related to licencing that the people here (and in the OSS community) are familiar with. If I had asked Mercedes Corby if I could licence the images under the GFDL I'm sure she would not have had the slightest clue what I was talking about. I'm certain her focus, then as now, is on her sister who has now been convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to 20 years jail, not licencing issues. I was not about to expect her to absorb alot of information on licencing when she had more important things to worry about. As far as I'm concerned I asked for images that were copyright free and that is what I got. Here we have images that (as far as I know) no one has objected to and yet they may be deleted. IMHO we need to stop and consider the intent of a grant to use an image, not just the specific wording of the grant because most people in the world will not use the exact wording which seems to be expected. If we do not then Wikipedia will ultimately be the loser. I spent time and effort getting those image and I'm disappointed that they may be deleted for a subtlety of licencing which is probably of absolutely no concern to the person who took the image or most of the people viewing the images. Although understanding of licencing is growing in the general community most people will never care as much as a typical Wikipedia contributor. We have to learn to live with this. Also, to Anthere's comment that this should go to Wikien, after considering I think this is the right list as the image could be use on any in articles of any language. Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. Senior Technical Consultant, OpenTrend Solutions Ltd. Phone: +1-416-669-3073 Email: rbrockway(a)opentrend.net http://www.opentrend.net OpenTrend Solutions: Reliable, secure solutions to real world problems. Contributing Member of Software in the Public Interest (http://www.spi-inc.org)

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Erik Moeller wrote: Hi Erik. Thanks for your reply. In future I'll certainly use an approach like this. Cheers, Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. Senior Technical Consultant, OpenTrend Solutions Ltd. Phone: +1-416-669-3073 Email: rbrockway(a)opentrend.net http://www.opentrend.net OpenTrend Solutions: Reliable, secure solutions to real world problems. Contributing Member of Software in the Public Interest (http://www.spi-inc.org)

Robert Brockway wrote: It is not difficult to explain. You can just tell her the basic conditions of the license and ask. Give her a URL with the license and warn her that it is complicated. Explain the basics clearly, and document everything. But if we do not get proper licensing, then Wikipedia will *really* ultimately be the loser. --Jimbo

Phil Boswell schrieb: The point is that we want others to be able to use Wikipedia material under a free license (GFDL). If the permission is only for Wikipedia, it excludes that use and, thus, shouldn't be used. Sure we could, but the rest of the copyright-DRM-IP-crazy world wouldn't go for it :-( Magnus

Phil Boswell wrote: I think that's a perfectly logical progression, but it is missing a few steps. A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia, but _only_ on Wikipedia." B) Wikipedia is a _freely licensed_ encyclopedia, meaning that things on Wikipedia may be used by lots and lots of people without them having to ask permission C) Therefore, even though something may be licensed to "Wikipedia only", Wikipedia can not use it unless it is licensed under a free license. --Jimbo

Exactly, the good way to do would be to ask the permission to use the content in wikipédia AND to provide a link to the GFDL. Le 4 juin 05 à 17:08, Timwi a écrit :

Jimmy Wales wrote: Unfortunately, many people in this thread have forgotten the option of public domain. If you just ask the copyright holder something like "do you forgo your copyright?" or perhaps even "can anyone use it for any purpose whatsoever?" then they are not only much more likely to give an informed answer, but in the case of a "yes" it's even more useful. We all know that the problems with the GNU FDL are even worse for images. How would you use a GFDL image in a (new) printed document? The images I have contributed are [crap, but at least] public domain. :)

The creative commons licences are imho much easier to explain to ppl :) Finne On 6/5/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- "Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy" http://hekla.rave.org/cookbook.html - my crossplatform dieet/recipe app

Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote: While I'm not an expert in French legislation, I highly doubt that it prohibits allowing other people to use your work for any purpose whatsoever. They might consider it a licence as opposed to public domain, but that doesn't make a difference in practice. Timwi

Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote: So what *are* you allowed to allow? (The mere phrasing of that question gives me an uneasy feeling that French legislation is even worse than German. ;-) )