On 6/11/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
So, I should print it out, frame it nicely, then glue the GFDL to the bottom of the frame before hanging it on my wall? Imagine there's a world outside of cyberspace....
If you hang it on your wall at home, you don't have to add anything to it. If you /redistribute/ it, then you have to give the license.
Though strictly not legal, I doubt anyone will come after you if you settle for license name and link in the image credits. If you're going to mass-print GFDL-based picture catalogs, you'll probably have a page ot two for the license anyway :-)
What I really do is just what everyone else does, ignore all the images with GFDL and search for ones with Public Domain releases.
So you personally know "everyone else"? Or do you have any usage statistics?
I'm an artist, so don't try telling me I can just download someon else's image and not comply with the licensing agreement, but it's absurd to allow one to be used that simply can't be used--and, again, imagine a world where images are used for things other than cyberspace communities.
Do you have a real-life example where it is impossible for you to comply with the license?
The whole image world on Wikipedia and escpecially Wikimedia Commons is so difficult and poorly thought out in so many ways that I seldom bother uploading images. Things like this, the common usage of a license which, if anyone ever read it, simply could not be understood to apply to images, is just one of many frustrating issues.
Licensing images under GFDL was a neccessity in the beginning, as it was the only copyleft license for non-software documents available at the time. I think its use as the only image license will decline. Personally, I dual-license all my files on commons GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5, to give the user the maximum of choices.
Magnus