[Foundation-l] Donation of DVDs to Wikimedia Foundation Projects

Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell at gmail.com
Wed Jan 3 21:21:26 UTC 2007

Wikinews also accepts nd (I.e. Obnoxiously not free content) images,
so I'm not inclined to give any weight to their decisions.

Most of the opposition to gfdl images I see on commons are half truths
and simple misinformation.

As mentioned, the GFDL v2 draft does allow some reproduction without the text.

I just don't see why there is so much flak for the gfdls attempt to
ensure recipents know their rights vs cc's effort to promote their
brand and website (esp when the creative commons site promote licenses
which are not free content licenses and the majority of uses of cc
licenses are using the non free ones).

On 1/3/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> >On 1/3/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>How so?  I will admit that the GFDL is written primarily for textual
> >>manipulation and content, but that is about like saying the GPL is lousy
> >>for copyright purposes in a book.  Other than the "authorship" clauses
> >>being blurred so much for video that it is hard to determine exactly who
> >>participated with the development of the video (motion pictures can
> >>sometimes involve hundreds of people in the production of one "work"),
> >>I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >For that standard low res we video includeing a copy of the lisence is
> >a serious problem. the isue that the GNU logo itself appears to be
> >under the free art lisence is interesting complication although not
> >one most people will encounter.
> >
> I'll admit that the requirement for inclusion is a huge issue with the
> GFDL, and so significant that projects like Wikinews have decided to
> abandon the license entirely in part because of this issue.  For
> projects like Wikibooks, it is only a minor annoyance that only takes up
> a couple of extra pages when distributed elsewhere.
> It would be nice to have, in a future version of the GFDL, some optional
> clause that would allow for smaller works to simply provide a network
> location to a copy of the GFDL, instead of requiring the complete text,
> or something alone similar lines of thought.  Unfortunately, this is the
> wrong mailing list to try and get those sort of changes implimented.
> >
> >I'm not really thinking about semi professional or professional films
> >but well in my case narrated instructional slide shows. So the number
> >of people involved isn't a problem. The problems asside from incudeing
> >the lisence are:
> >
> >Has to be GFDL only since I can't figure out how the almagimation
> >stuff is meant to apply to videos. Free art  are and CC are out (thank
> >goodness for Wildebeests).
> >
> >Ok I've included the lisence now how long do I have to include it for?
> >10 sec? 1 min?
> >
> >
> This is a very good question.  In theory, one video frame might be all
> that is legally required, but that hardly seems to be fitting.  Clearly
> this is one area that the GFDL does fall flat on its face as it is not
> very clear what is needed here.
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list