[Foundation-l] Let's switch to CC-BY-SA

[teun spaans]

Thank you.

On 9/11/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> teun spaans wrote:
> > This summer I tried to write a hiking route, illustrated with pix of the
> > plants en route. Most photos I could provide from my own walk along
> those
> > trails, but for some I tried to find some on commons. Inclusion of 1 or
> 2
> > photos from commons would force me to publish the entire 3 page
> description
> > under GFDL, instead of CC-BY-SA, <stress>and</stress> include a n-page
> > complete GFDL text. Very unpracticle.
> If it's a web page, you could simply place a link to it.


It is an openoffice document, not a webpage. I had inserted a link for the
time being, bit i think the GFDL text requires me to provide the full text,
not just a link. Also, if the camping site which serves as a starting point
wants to provide their visitors with printed copies, the GFDL requires them
to put the GFDL prominently on the titlepage AND provide the full text in
print.

All this is just al illustration of my opinion that the GFDL is a highly
impractical license, and that we would do well to accept other licenses
instead of or alongside GFDL.

> Note that GFDL has no provision for these practical problems.

That's why commons suggests using a dual GFDL Cc-by-sa for the images.
Also, not all photos of commons are GFDL. We probably have as many
Public Domain images as GFDL (and there're also many CC). You had bad
luck with the license of those 2 images you needed.
Moreover, you can always ask the author to (re)license it, either with a
generic CC license, or giving you permission to use it on the route. I
see no sensible reason he wouldn't accept to do it.

Maybe i had bad luck with these images, but i guess more than half of those
i browsed through were GFDL only. Maybe i'll do a count this weekend.
Yes, I could try to ask the original uploaders - but we dont provide images
for the sole purpose so that users should still approach the original
owners. We try ro provide FREE content. Perhaps we should allow GFDL at
commons as a license alongside CC-BA, just as we allow ADRM2 alongside a
free license, and disable the GFDL only license at commons. A radical
measure, i admit.


_______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>