--- Robert Graham Merkel robert.merkel@benambra.org wrote:
I wish to propose that images available under *some* of the Creative Commons licenses, that offer equivalent (or even more permissive) use than the GNU FDL, be permitted to be used in Wikipedia.
The licenses are the:
By-attribution license:
The only requirement to use works create by this license is that you must give the author credit.
The Attribution-ShareAlike license:
IANAL but I don't see a problem with that. Many people, such as myself, dual license our images under both the GNU FDL and CC by-sa. And as you mention the FDL provides for aggregate works. So if the images are free content and used as aggregate works, then everything should be OK.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
I wish to propose that images available under
*some* of the Creative
Commons licenses, that offer equivalent (or even
more permissive) use
than the GNU FDL, be permitted to be used in
Wikipedia.
If we accept fair use images, I see no reason not to accept CC-licensed ones as well. We already have a lot of images used under various CC licenses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=... for example. Correct tagging of images used under these licenses is very important so that reusers who want only GFDL content can easily sort them out from the rest. Adding a message such as {{cc-by-sa}} is the easiest way of doing this. See [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]] for more details.
Angela http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela
____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
I fully support that we should accept images under all free licenses, using the aggregation clause of the GNU FDL. (Clause 7.)
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
I fully support that we should accept images under all free licenses, using the aggregation clause of the GNU FDL. (Clause 7.)
So do I. Images are easier to deal with in that respect.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I fully support that we should accept images under all free licenses, using the aggregation clause of the GNU FDL. (Clause 7.)
This requires defining a free license, however:
-- Does requiring attribution (like old-style BSD) make the license non-free? Richard Stallman seems to think so, from what I can gather from gnu.org. -- Does permitting only verbatim redistribution make the license non-free? Many people (including myself) would argue so.
If we're going to allow things other than GFDL and public domain, we'll have to come up with a set of free software guidelines, much as Debian has done (either that, or agree to adopt one of the existing sets, either Debian's, or the FSF's, or some other one).
-Mark
Delirium wrote in part:
-- Does requiring attribution (like old-style BSD) make the license non-free? Richard Stallman seems to think so, from what I can gather from gnu.org.
I hope that this isn't what Richard Stallman thinks!, because his own licences (GNU FDL, also GNU GPL and GNU LGPL) also require attribution. Actually, according to <licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD>, the problem with the old BSD licence is "the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''", and even then, RMS says that the licence is (while flawed) still free.
The ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause'' is more than attribution; it requires attribution on all ''advertising'' for the software, and ''specifically'' for the software's origin at UC Berkeley. This is obnoxious because it's more than just a Credits file; even so, in RMS's opinion, it's still free. Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html.
-- Does permitting only verbatim redistribution make the license non-free? Many people (including myself) would argue so.
I would argue so too, and I believe that even Stallman would agree. RMS often permits only verbatim redistribution of his essays, but I don't believe that he would characterise those essays as free. He doesn't want them to be free, since they're ''his'' opinion -- in contrast both to free software and to free documents like Wikipedia, which belong to the world.
Neither RMS, nor Debian, nor the Open Source Initiative, give clear definitions of "freedom" except for programming code, and it's not clear that the same rules should apply to everything else. But all of them that require free software must be modifiable.
-- Toby
On Jun 7, 2004, at 2:49 AM, Delirium wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I fully support that we should accept images under all free licenses, using the aggregation clause of the GNU FDL. (Clause 7.)
This requires defining a free license, however:
-- Does requiring attribution (like old-style BSD) make the license non-free? Richard Stallman seems to think so, from what I can gather from gnu.org.
Don't the GFDL and GNU GPL require attribution?
-- Does permitting only verbatim redistribution make the license non-free? Many people (including myself) would argue so.
I would say so.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org