Peter Ansell wrote:
On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen
Peter Ansell wrote:
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has
turned into a
firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor
Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the
essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a
good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of
child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the
pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the
photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would
be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the
No, it's not. Look at the title of this thread again. This is
increasingly farther afield off down an irrelevant tangent that was
quite properly ignored when you first tried to take us here.
Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a
including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a
photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
I'm no lawyer, but I've just read through the relevant sections of the
and I don't see anything that could be interpreted that way. The licence
only deals with legalities regarding copyright, it doesn't remove
liabilities relating to any other law breaking that occurs in the
process (and I don't imagine it'd be _able_ to). If someone were to use
a GFDLed document to commit libel, for example, I don't see how one
could claim that one couldn't sue for libel.
Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the
recent issue with
commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos,
there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child
safety in Florida, US.
We're not talking about child safety. We're talking about the safety of
_photographs_ of children.
No, we're talking about web hosting and redirects. Never mind.