Marco Chiesa wrote:
Commons accepts materials that are free according to
GFDL works fall within that
definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we
cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that
works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst
feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's
no reason to stop doing it.
In terms of our policy, I agree with this. That being said, for anyone
deciding what license to choose when contributing to Wikimedia Commons -
I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under
the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a
GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when
applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the
dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful.