Fastfission wrote:
On 9/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/09/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote: In particular, the GFDL for images is pretty much a pretend free-content licence and not effectively one at all. "Yes, you can freely reuse our images in print if you print the entire text of the licence next to it." Uh, yeah.
This is why I recommend to people who are anxious about releasing their images under free licenses to use GFDL. Yes, they are technically free, and can be used easily be web pages. But you'll probably never see any print sources bother.
Our GFDL non-compliance goes beyond images, though. If you read over the GFDL very carefully there are all sorts of things that are impractical for a communal encyclopedia to do (i.e. modified versions of works are supposed to have different titles with every modification — not exactly practical when you are all editing the same draft-in-progress).
FF
Well, I think you could argue that the if the "full" title of an article is taken to include its page name, source site _and_ revision ID, which is certainly required for uniqueness, then the letter of the licence is already met in current practice. See, for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fish&oldid=76478297
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=Fish&id=...
Can anyone tell me whether Wikipedia has a formal DOI prefix and scheme already set up?
-- Neil