Jimbo wrote:
... If that means less images for now, then it means less images for now. It also means that we have a very strong incentive to develop free alternatives.
No it means that many things will *never* have images. For example, Dolly the Sheep is dead. The only images of her are either from the news media or from the Roslin Institute. Therefore I used the images from the Roslin Institute. The license on those images states that they can be freely used in a noncommercial setting so long as credit is given. I have done that.
What we need is the ability to mark those image pages so that commercial downstream users can easily exclude them.
I really like the GNU philosophy, but the GNU license is a means to an end. That end is, at least for me, to create the best encyclopedia on the planet.
And to do that we need to use some noncommercial grant, special permission, and liberal fair use doctrine images. So IMO, we should officially discourage the use of these hindered images by encouraging freer alternatives, but we should not ban them. We should mark them so that non-Wikimedia and/or commercial downstream users can easily exclude their display in their versions of our articles.
Text is a different matter since there is no easy way to exclude hindered text for downstream users. So "fair use" in that regard must be limited to what a commercial user could do (relatively short and clearly marked and attributed quotations).
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools