Here's a question. Is it acceptable to put a non-free licence as an option if a work is also clearly under a free licence? If so, I might be suggesting this to a few people and organisations ... there's one or two I think I could get GFDL-plus-CC-by-nc-nd past ...
[Erik - not just that one, another one I'm speaking to. w00t!]
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com Date: 27-Feb-2007 16:53 Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] a new free image! To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA (on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a double licensing would be allowed on commons :) Marco
Yonatan Horan wrote:
And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as the GFDL would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and it's a long document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your pictures) would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not going to include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if somebody wants to use it commercially.
-Yonatan
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l