I think what you mean is Internet-only license. It is very easy to include the GFDL in an electronic medium. It is relatively hard to include it in a print one.
(As someone who WANTS his contributions to be used far and wide, in any medium, without even wanting attribution, I've started relicensing all of my images under CC-SA, because it seems even more free than GFDL in this respect).
FF
On 11/29/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Minor nit-pick: that situation is improbable because IIRC the brochure (if it used GFDL material) has to include the whole whopping GFDL licence in it.
Which is why releasing a picture under the GFDL is de facto a Wikipedia-only license. There have been a few times where I've persuaded someone to release an image under GFDL (rather than not at all) by showing them how hard it would be for someone to legally use the image outside of a Wikipedia context, especially a print one.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l