On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:46:42 -0400, Anthony DiPierro
<anthony_dipierro(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
I think you're thinking of public domain, not
GFDL. GFDL is not absolute
freedom. Furthermore, we haven't committed ourselves to the GFDL, only the
spirit of the GFDL.
Sorry to only pick up on one point out of a whole e-mail, but we are
absolutely committed to the GFDL, whether we like it or not: anything
that we use 99.99% of the content already submitted for has to be
compatible with the GFDL, because that is the licence it has been
submitted to us under.
As I say, we can do two things with images:
(1) distribute a GFDL version of Wikipedia with only those images that
are compatible with the GFDL, and a separate version which includes
all images, but is under a more restrictive licence that is compatible
with the licence of *all* images used; fair use images, strictly,
should not appear in the former; and the latter may actually breach
the GFDL's terms for "derivative works" for all I know.
or (2) throw out any image that is not GFDL-compliant
AFAIK, currently, we are following option (0), which is "fudge it by
saying we haven't decided yet, and offer the images for reuse under a
label saying 'these may or may not actually be legal for you to
reuse'; and rely on the fact that nobody hates us enough yet to
challenge us over it". I may be wrong on that bit, but that's my
understanding.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]