I agree with this completely. I think we should switch to CC-by-sa for images. This would certainly be compliant with the spirit of the GFDL, and according to the same arguments as fair use it is compliant with the letter of the GFDL.
Anthony
Delirium wrote:
I think part of the problem is that it's hard to get licensing, because nobody understands the GFDL. It's easy if Wikipedians submit their own photographs, which should be encouraged (it saves a lot of hassle, and lets us get exactly what we want), but often that's not possible.
To raise one example, a few weeks ago I emailed Red Hat's licensing department asking about the copyright status of their "hat" logo. I essentially asked if we may, solely as regards copyright law, use that particular drawing (which I assume is copyrighted, being an original drawing) under either the GFDL or some other permissive license. I went to some length to indicate that we're not asking for any trademark license or any sort of trademark permission at all, and will expect to be held to the standard permitted uses of trademarks.
So far, haven't gotten a response... if even a GPL-friendly company like Red Hat doesn't know what to do about it (unless I just hit the wrong people), then I don't see why we'd expect most others to do so.
Though in this particular case, it may be worth it to not bother, as 99% of the thing with logos is probably the trademark, not the copyright on a particular drawing that comprises the logo.
-Mark