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
On 2/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
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!]
Because the Creative Commons has issued guidelines for the use of -NC licenses which suggest that it's perfectly fine to exploit a -NC image commercial so long as the exploitation is on behalf of a individual or non-profit, I wouldn't suggest anyone concerned about the commercial use of their works use -NC as it may not have the desired effect. (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines)
It's also the case that GFDL + CC-by-nc-nd is generally considered to be a sign of license confusion.
All that said, we do have people who do exactly as you suggest and there is probably no reason that we should forbid it in policy beyond the fact that promoting these non-free licenses is actively against our own interests. Especially if people use GFDL+CC-By-SA-NC rather than -NC-ND because we run the risk of someone making a derivative under Cc-by-sa-nc only thus removing the work from the pool of free works. (and on this note I'm going to go hunt for folks using GFDL+CC-by-sa-nc and ask them to change to GFDL + -nc-nd. Never thought I'd ask someone to use NC-ND!! :) )
Instead I think it's probably more useful to write the following in the permissions field:
"[GFDL]. Contact [MyNameGoesHere] to obtain alternative licensing in order to incorporate this work into non-free works."
This is just reemphasizing the GFDL+allrightsreserved which exists for all works.
On 27/02/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's also the case that GFDL + CC-by-nc-nd is generally considered to be a sign of license confusion.
Yeah. I'm talking about some stuff that's already CC-by-nc-nd. Quote: "Oh, it should be fine, it's all Creative Commons!" Thus proving Stallman right. Gah. I'm hoping getting them to GFDL it as well will sound good to them.
Perhaps I'll make up a custom tag ...
- d.
On 2/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/02/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's also the case that GFDL + CC-by-nc-nd is generally considered to be a sign of license confusion.
Yeah. I'm talking about some stuff that's already CC-by-nc-nd. Quote: "Oh, it should be fine, it's all Creative Commons!" Thus proving Stallman right. Gah. I'm hoping getting them to GFDL it as well will sound good to them.
Perhaps I'll make up a custom tag ...
It's a constant problem for us. :( And the offence.. "I already gave it to you with the CreativeCommons license, what more do you greedy vultures want?!" ;)
If only someone close to Wikimedia were on the Creative Commons Board (http://creativecommons.org/about/people) so that we'd have a way to encourage them to stop Creating Confusion.... ;)