--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
No, the precise thing we need is that the copyright holder releases the picture under GFDL.
Also fine, but again, expensive, because it deviates from usual licensing policies.
I'm not sure we should assume this before having tried. One could argue that this should actually be pretty cheap: * GFDL materials are useless for most commercial enterprises * if they refuse to release under GFDL, we can always threaten to take it under fair use, which means that they neither get author recognition nor money.
I don't see the slippery slope, sorry.
I don't either. It's either freely distributable/modifiable or it isn't.
A "fair use is not allowed" stance is neither balanced nor logical. I have not seen your response to my analysis that conluded that quotations are more problematic than images.
If I understood correctly, you argue that quotes are embedded in the text while images are kept in separate files, thus GFDL is not inherited by the photo but is inherited by the quotes. This is incorrect. Derivative work are required to be under GFDL; what constitutes a derivative work is defined by copyright law. The technical detail that text and images are typically kept in separate files is irrelevant; illustrating an article by adding a picture is a classical case of a derivative work. Moving quotes out of the main text and then "including" them somehow is a technical gimmick that doesn't change anything: adding a quote also creates a derivative work.
So yes, fair use quotes are technically violations of GFDL, but completely harmless. Nobody wants to change quotes anyway, and fair use quotes are typically minute parts the work they originate from. Even commercial redistributors can use those quotes under fair use. All three of the above are false for images.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com