Is the GFDL even recommended for images? I saw a few users on Commons who made what to me seemed a rather persuasive point that the GFDL is really not that great a license for images, because it requires reproduction of the entire two-page license with every use of GFDL-licensed content. For web-media, this is less of a problem, but for print media it seems rather impractical.
Since then I've been licensing all of my image contributions as CC-SA, which seems to require a lot less in this respect (and accomplish the same thing -- images are free so long as derivative content is itself licensed similarly).
But I'd be interested in other opinions on this, while we're on the subject.
FF
On 11/26/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Nyenyec N wrote:
What is the definitive source to read about which image licenses are compatible with the GFDL?
There isn't one. The closest thing to a definitive source would be the Free Software Foundation, but they don't really address the question. They have a detailed list of which software licenses are and are not compatible with the GPL, but their comments on content licenses are much more limited. They don't address the question you're getting at because their comments are limited to software and documentation (the original purpose of the GFDL), and images are something other than simply documentation.
Or perhaps a GFDL text with non-GFDL images added doesn't count as derivative work?
This is a thorny question of interpretation without an easy answer. However, the GFDL does allow independent works under other license terms (including incompatible, non-free, and even proprietary licenses) to be combined in GFDL content in an "aggregation" (Section 7 of the GFDL).
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l