Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] a new free image! - Commons-l

27 Feb 2007

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 &lt;chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com&gt;
Date: 27-Feb-2007 16:53
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] a new free image!
To: wikipedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l