On the other hand, it's a less free license than many we use.
<snip> but since to
comply with our existing licencing obligations it would mean offering two copies of the database, I think anything that cannot be distributed under the GFDL should be avoided.
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
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.
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.
But IANAL (and probably those images are not THAT terrific though :)
Pedro.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:41:14 +0100, KNOTT, T tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote:
On the other hand, it's a less free license than many we use.
<snip> but since to
comply with our existing licencing obligations it would mean offering two copies of the database, I think anything that cannot be distributed under the GFDL should be avoided.
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l