G'day Eugene,
K P schreef:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked before, so I'm pretty sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright attached to them.
According to Richard Stallman, who heads the FSF, who are the authors of the GFDL, this is not necessary. See for example this discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc6... .
Quote by RMS: "A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to be." In this case, one volume of the work can be the image; the other the GFDL.
Excuse me, but does that pass WP:RS?
<snip/>
Which is a pain, yes. As other people have said, the GFDL is not really a convenient license for wikipedia or images, or anything else really. But it is possible to use GFDL'ed content without bending the rules too much.
It strikes me that, for those of us who are not Richard Stallman, GFDL is quite poor for any purpose you'd care to name. But we're stuck with it, I suppose.
Cheers,