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. Then, once you've attacked the copyright notice, why the hell would you want to use the image, other than to demonstrate how it can't possibly be applied to images, in which case images uploaded under GNUFDLBLAHBLAHBLAH are completely worthless, because no one else can ever use them except under limited and crippling conditions.
2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
So, you copy a tiny image of the Internet and you have to add 3 pages of licensing text? That's BS. It means essentially that for all the uploaders generosity in uploading the image it can't be used by anyone else because it can't meet the requirements of the license because meeting the requirements would destroy the usability of the image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sweetbay1082.jpg
Why are images uploaded under a license that obviously doesn't apply to images?
Is this one of those cases where I should know to just ignore the title and the words because they mean something else, in which case the license is meaningless....
KP