[Commons-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] a new free image!

[David Gerard]

Here's a question. Is it acceptable to put a non-free licence as an
option if a work is also clearly under a free licence? If so, I might
be suggesting this to a few people and organisations ... there's one
or two I think I could get GFDL-plus-CC-by-nc-nd past ...

[Erik - not just that one, another one I'm speaking to. w00t!]


- d.




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com>
Date: 27-Feb-2007 16:53
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] a new free image!
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org


If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA
(on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a
double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
Marco

Yonatan Horan wrote:

>And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons
>license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as the GFDL
>would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and it's a long
>document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your pictures)
>would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not going to
>include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional
>photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let
>us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the
>person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who
>released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if
>somebody wants to use it commercially.
>
>-Yonatan
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l