Anthere wrote:
Brion Vibber a écrit:
On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my user page, instead of under gfdl ?
You can choose to allow that use _as well as_ the GFDL you've already agreed to. But, once given, I'm not sure you can withdraw the GFDL permission without cause. (IANAL!)
Actually, I'm quite sure you can't withdraw it "without cause," and I doubt you could find a reason to withdraw the license "with cause." The text of the GFDL specifically states that the license is "unlimited in duration". A GPL-type license is perpetual and cannot be withdrawn.
Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the images would be removed from Wikipedia.
No, they shouldn't be. Since the license cannot be withdrawn, the images stay. By uploading them to Wikipedia, you agree to the terms of the license. The only images that should be withdrawn are those under copyright, if the user did not have authority to grant a GFDL.
I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
The images may still be copyrighted. The GFDL and copyright are not mutually exclusive. However, the author's permission must be GFDL, or something less restrictive than the GFDL.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Brion Vibber a écrit:
On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my user page, instead of under gfdl ?
You can choose to allow that use _as well as_ the GFDL you've already agreed to. But, once given, I'm not sure you can withdraw the GFDL permission without cause. (IANAL!)
Actually, I'm quite sure you can't withdraw it "without cause," and I doubt you could find a reason to withdraw the license "with cause." The text of the GFDL specifically states that the license is "unlimited in duration". A GPL-type license is perpetual and cannot be withdrawn
Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the images would be removed from Wikipedia.
No, they shouldn't be. Since the license cannot be withdrawn, the images stay. By uploading them to Wikipedia, you agree to the terms of the license. The only images that should be withdrawn are those under copyright, if the user did not have authority to grant a GFDL.
I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
The images may still be copyrighted. The GFDL and copyright are not mutually exclusive. However, the author's permission must be GFDL, or something less restrictive than the GFDL.
--Michael Snow
Right. I can't remove them. Now, it is problematic to me, as some of these images are declared being from me in other places (and it is important that they are from me *over there*), while now, they also exist in another website, apparently owned by another person, and not clearly gfdl any more. So, my offering them under gfdl to Wikipedia (that is, normally preserving my authorship) is likely to hurt me indirectly in my real life as some one could claim being the author and having a copyright on it. If I can't remove them, I suppose however that I can replace some of them with identical images with a gfdl license embedding in ? That will not make it for the ones now lost, but at least, future pictures and future uses will be saved ? Of course, the embedded licence can be removed, but it makes things harder. Can I do that ? If Wikipedia itself does not try to secure its participants rights, how far can we go to preserve the rights we should have in our participation under gfdl Michael ?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org