On 22/07/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote: Would it be possible to have on the back "this image is licensed blah by blah, see blah.com/blah for details", or is that only a valid approach when the "link" is live, as in a hyperlink, and easily accessible with the image? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Thanks, Delphine! That's exactly as I feared then - GFDL isn't a very suitable license to make free images with. And someone who wanted to make a postcard series out of the featured pictures would indeed have problems since many of them are only licensed under the GFDL. This is a problem and we need to address it. At the very least we should add the CC-BY-SA option to the image upload page. It currently reads: "Specify the licence of the file by adding the appropriate tag(s), e.g. {{GFDL}}, {{PD}}, etc." It seems that {{GFDL}} isn't really that appropriate a tag. Look at this user's license here: "The work is first licensed under the GFDL to make it fully compatible with all Wikimedia projects. Since the GFDL is inappropriate for photos, audio, video and short text, this work is also licensed under superior Creative Commons licences. Note that the CC licences chosen prohibit commercial use. In other words, if you want to legally make money out of my work, you'll either have to pay me or include the full text of the GFDL with your product." (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Chamaeleon/Licence) The assumption seems to be that including the full text of the GFDL isn't a viable option in many (most?) cases. Regards, Haukur P.S. How about a license like this: "This picture can be used by anyone for any purpose as long as a copy of the American Declaration of Independence is included in any publications derived from it." Would that be a free license? :)

Jimmy Wales wrote: The question then becomes: when? I've stuck to GFDL for my images, on the basis that this change has been promised, but how long do we need to wait for a /practical/ licence? -- (a very impatient) sannse