--- Robert Graham Merkel wrote: 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

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote: 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/

Delirium wrote in part: 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>. 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