2009/8/4 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: I have said this to you before: GFDL has never been incompatible with CC in the context of embedding images in encyclopedic text. At the very least, we have always insisted they are compatible (otherwise we would not have been able to include CC-licensed images in GFDL text, which we did all the time). GFDL-only uploads are not very nice (and I am sad to see them, especially on featured media); by all means, encourage CC licenses. But don’t spread FUD, please. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

Hoi, The purpose of Wikipedia and its sister projects is to make material available and have it used as widely as possible. The fact that we have two licenses is a reasonable compromise because it allows everyone who remained on the GFDL to continue to use our material. The purpose of the change has been to allow the use of our material that is predominantly using only the Creative Commons license. The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are compatible does not make them compatible. The fact that it is unlikely that WE get into problems, does not justify the continued practice of accepting GFDL only material when our reusers might. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/4 Nemo_bis <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>

Hoi, Please note that I only call for no more new uploads of GFDL material. Also my main argument is ignored; the ability and surety that such documents can be legally used by our downstream users of our content. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/4 Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snow<wikipedia(a)verizon.net> wrote: [snip] Because, unfortunately, representatives of Creative Commons have asserted that CC-By-Sa licensed media can integrated as a whole integrated into non-free works, producing a result which is not freely licensed. In other words— that the cc-by-sa copyleft is nearly moot in the context of images since they tend to be either incorporated verbatim or subject to only trivial non-copyright deserving modifications even when the the resulting work as a whole clearly builds upon the illustration and isn't merely a collection of separate things. The license text itself appears to be reasonably explicit on this matter— but I feel it would be unethical to use CC-By-SA when doing so would cause me to end up litigating against people who were merely following, in good faith, what they believe to be authoritative advice. GFDL licensed images are still perfectly usable in freely licensed reference works, in spite of the inconveniences in the license. It's unfortunate that there doesn't currently exist an "unclouded" copyleft license which is well suited for photographs.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Michael Snow<wikipedia(a)verizon.net> wrote: To be full clear: I was not attempting to and would not blame Creative Commons because other people make errors regarding licensing. As you point out— confusion in this area is a universal truth. The critical distinction is that when someone makes an error regarding the application of the GFDL I can write them a polite explanation, and even point them to the FSF blog entry commenting specifically on this issue. I have a 100% satisfaction rate with this approach. With CC-By-SA there exist a distinct risk that any attempt to educate will be simply be countered by a reference to the incorrect claim that CC-By-SA's copyleft doesn't extend past the edges of an image, leading to a distinctly more adversarial negotiation. Of course— many people will claim many things, and these things are not legally binding— but I think you have to agree that the words of a party with near unilateral power to change the licensing terms does have a special authority. This is a primary factor why the majority of my illustrations remain FDL-1.2 only and also why I discontinued contributing copyrightable works to Wikimedia while the licensing question was open. It is not the only factor, but it's one that can be fixed. Cheers,

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>

Hoi, My opinion is that the CC-by-sa has always been the right license. The GFDL served us well and I am really grateful to the FSF that they were so gracious to allow us to move over to the CC-by-sa. The CC-by-sa is a different license and it was the accepted wisdom that CC-by-sa material could be used in a GFDL environment. The problem that I now have with the GFDL is very much the result of the unending threatening noises on this list about the legalities of the GFDL and the trheat to sue to "get ensure that their rights prevail". I have sadly learned to head such warnings. Now I do believe that the existing material is largely by people who provided them with all the best intentions.The militancy of the GFDL nuts have spoilt my faith in a continued acceptable outcome. That is why I argue against continued acceptance of GFDL only material. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/6 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec(a)gmail.com>

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Right, that's why I focused my comments on people who are in a position to choose the license. --Michael Snow