Salve,
Am Dienstag, 24. Februar 2004 18:52 schrieb Richard Stallman:
I don't think that the question of a "license for images" is a well-posed question.
Maybe - frankly - I just hoped someone would reply: "not again Rob, see http://.... we have discussed it hardly and came to this good conclusion...." ;)
The ethical requirements depend more on the purpose of the work (entertainment or education, say) than on the medium (image or text, say). Images in textbooks should be free, including the freedom to publish modified versions, and the GFDL is a good license to use.
Agree: The is very good for texts, this is out of the question. Disagree: But IMHO the GFDL give not proper instructions how a user of a picture with GFDL must store the information about this picture. E.g. I have seen many printed books with a list of picture sources at the end, but without the information which of these pictures came from which source - that would be not in the spirit of GNU.
Images meant for entertainment are a different issue, and I would probably recommend using one of the Creative Commons licenses for them.
This view entertainment/education (black/white) is a bit naive. There are also economic interrests of some (big) player in the field of education. One of the manipulator in the discussion in Europe about "intellectual property rights" are publishing companies like Bertelsmann. They expect that the education market will be one or that market with the strongest economic growth next years - worldwide.
So for some people is science and education just a trading goods like others. Some manipulators tries to get new laws pefect to maximise the profit with the goods science/education. This is the reason why I´m against (still) "fair use" material inside of the wikipedia.
I would prefer license like GFDL for everythink, but for pictures where a right owner (e.g. institutes) has a higher commercial interrest Creative Commons licenses without the right for commercial use could be a working compromise for both interrests.
Frankly, I´m not happy with the Creative Commons licenses - I fear non commercial use could make pictures unusable for schools/universities if not the teacher work honorary. Is this fear reasonable?
-What exactly is the restriction of non-commercial? -When would a commercial use begin? -Is it sure that the devinition of non-commercial/commercial is not too weak and will be changed it`s wight by changed circumstance and law, especially introducing "intellectual property rights"?
There is no difficulty in including images in a GFDL-covered work. It isn't necessary to mention images specifically in the license because the same conditions apply to text, images, and whatever else the work may contain.
Full agree, the Wikipedia should go on to use GFDL for pictures, too. My discussion is not for immediately changes, it is focused on a long term - I hold this mail 6 days in my in my draft folder and I´m sorry that I haven`t found much more clarity on this topic.
Because I have doubts about the Creative Commons licenses we should go on with Richards idea of "free use for educational purpose" - for a more restrictive license for the case that we can`t motivate a right owner to publish a picture with GFDL. But isn`t education too weak that even a "Wheel of Fortune" TV-show would claim this show would be an educational one?
rob
PS: Does somebody have thoughts about the EUs "intellectual property rights" directives and ideas to raise a statement in the name of the Wikipedia foundation against it?