On 6/11/07, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
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/d04e3fc…
.
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,
--
Mark Gallagher
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
Precisely why are we stuck with it? If it were an article it would be
up for deletion.