Why exactly is this template on the Commons? Obviously, it is an attempt to make commercial use as difficult as possible. Arguably it does that, and the image ultimately is freely licensed so there is no issue with it being on the Commons.
<br><br>However, this style of template is contrary to the goal of free content. Any non-commercial user who uses an image to make a derivative is almost certainly going to pick the non-commercial CC license instead of the GFDL (as its easier to use); it will be rare that they will care about the free content mission enough to choose the &quot;nasty&quot; GFDL. This means that any derivatives will not be free content and furthermore due to the SA term any further derivatives will be locked in a non-commercial state.
<br><br>If people have qualms about the commercial use of their image, then they should not be uploading it as &quot;free&quot; content. I think any images tagged with this template should be moved to GFDL-only licensing, Commons should not allow
<span style="font-weight: bold;"> ever </span>non-free licensing even as part of a dual license<br><br>Nilfanion<br>