Hoi,
It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again,
Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently it
is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its material.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/8/5 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec(a)gmail.com>
2009/8/4 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>om>:
GFDL licensed images are still perfectly usable
in freely licensed
reference works, in spite of the inconveniences in the license.
I am not sure what you mean, exactly. Do you consider GFDL to be
“strong copyleft”, i.e. that the viral clause applies to the text
surrounding a GFDL image? In that case, I don’t see where the “freely
licensed reference works” come from (GFDL does not talk about “freely
licensed”, only “under precisely this License”), and in that case,
CC-BY-SA-only Wikipedia articles would not be allowed to use GFDL-only
images. (In a similar way, GFDL-only Wikipedia articles of a recent
past would probably not have been allowed to use CC-only licensed
images.)
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l