But we already incorporate fair use images. It's
not fair use to uses
someone's image to advertise your product - so what's theproblem with
this licence?
Theresa
I agree. As long as the image is usable in a commercial mirror, I think we
should allow it. Since Wikimedia refuses to define freeness itself, I'll go
to
http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html. This page says
that a free encyclopedia requires permission of modification of images, but
the examples it gives are related to editorial modifications. I think this
license is well within the spirit of this definition.
The problem is that one (for-profit) publisher of
wikipedia which is not
the wikimedia foundation could say: "hey, look what terrific
images we have got in this publication"... And AFAIK that
goes against that very license.
Theresa
Seems to me that this would go against the license even if it was a
non-profit publisher doing that. But I don't see the big deal. The
publisher can just use a different image for eir ad.
GFDL implies absolute freedom or nothing at all. In
this spirit,
Richard Stallman had two or three interventions in this mailing list
some months ago.
I think you're thinking of public domain, not GFDL. GFDL is not absolute
freedom. Furthermore, we haven't committed ourselves to the GFDL, only the
spirit of the GFDL.
But IANAL (and probably those images are not THAT
terrific though :)
I'm not a lawyer either, so I'm relying on Jimmy Wales' assertion that
mixing *any* image with GFDL text is legally permitted. The question here
is whether or not we *should* use these images, not whether or not we
legally *can* use them.
Pedro.
Anthony