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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/28/05, John Lee <johnleemk(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l