On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Nov 2, 2003, at 03:35, Jurriaan Schulman wrote:
Is there any reason why one couldn't use
"1.) You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any
commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified
restrictions concerning each photo you download."
The license terms for individual pictures will vary, so be careful to
I have already downloaded several pictures from the site to Wikipedia. Most
do not have extra restrictions, but some do. Extra restrictions can be:
* notification of the author is required
* notification of the author and attribution are required
* permission of the author is needed
In general I have preferred to use pictures without further requirements,
but when none available, the first two have been used too, with a "this
picture does not fall under the GNU/FDL" added.
Also, I think it is considered good manners on the site to notify the
author that you have used their picture on Wikipedia even if such is not
"2.) Selling these photos (individually, or as a
whole) without written
permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on
postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling."
This sounds kind of vague, but the GNU Free Documentation License does
*not* prohibit selling works, and *does* prohibit further restrictions.
Wikipedia articles or derivatives of them may be printed, pressed, or
taped and sold (in addition to being given away for free or cost of
reproduction). Just something to consider.
On the other hand, the GNU/FDL does require that the source is also
available, and that people are allowed to download and further spread it.
Under such conditions, it will be hard to effectively sell the pictures -
especially since any selling of 'picture in a special form' seems ok.
In general, I would say it's strange to skim such licences for every small
thing that would make them non-GNU/FDL compliable, and at the same time
happily leave pictures that are much more suspect on our server.