And, shamelessly, i'll direct you to this entry in
my blog:
http://ouvaton.coop/redirect.php?url=mU7F1AUH, where I addressed the
subject of the GFDL being used for images. Case study.
Thanks, Delphine!
That's exactly as I feared then - GFDL isn't a very
suitable license to make free images with. And someone
who wanted to make a postcard series out of the
featured pictures would indeed have problems since
many of them are only licensed under the GFDL.
This is a problem and we need to address it. At the
very least we should add the CC-BY-SA option to the
image upload page. It currently reads:
"Specify the licence of the file by adding the
appropriate tag(s), e.g. {{GFDL}}, {{PD}}, etc."
It seems that {{GFDL}} isn't really that appropriate
a tag. Look at this user's license here:
"The work is first licensed under the GFDL to make it fully compatible
with all Wikimedia projects. Since the GFDL is inappropriate for photos,
audio, video and short text, this work is also licensed under superior
Creative Commons licences. Note that the CC licences chosen prohibit
commercial use. In other words, if you want to legally make money out of
my work, you'll either have to pay me or include the full text of the GFDL
with your product."
(
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Chamaeleon/Licence)
The assumption seems to be that including the
full text of the GFDL isn't a viable option in
many (most?) cases.
Regards,
Haukur
P.S. How about a license like this:
"This picture can be used by anyone for any purpose
as long as a copy of the American Declaration of
Independence is included in any publications derived
from it."
Would that be a free license? :)