On 6/12/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's just it. It's not practical to distribute a booklet along with images in many cases. No magazine would ever use a GFDL image if they had to distribute a booklet with it, or even print a copy of the license with it. The requirements of the license make re-use a hinderance unless the entire work is already being licensed under GFDL. Which is not a strategy which encourages re-use by any except those who are already totally sold on the free-content idea.
Well, I doubt any magazine (except maybe those published by the FSF, etc.) would use a GFDL image even if they didn't have to reprint the full licence, since IIRC they'd have to publish the whole issue under the GFDL or something like that. It's probably the same with the Creative Commons sharealike licences.
You probably have this mixed up with *GPL* and linked files. You can include a GFDL image in a magazine without having to have the whole thing under GFDL.
Of course, if the text of the magazine consists of wikipedia articles, with just a single word changed, that would qualify as "derivative work", and the word you changed would have to be GFDL as well :-)
Magnus