K P schreef:
Would someone please explain to me (I've asked
before, so I'm pretty
sure no one can/will, and it won't matter) how the GNU Free
Documentation License can possibly apply to images? It seems that, by
the words of the license, you have to modify the image itself to
conform to the license, because none of the images have the copyright
attached to them.
According to Richard Stallman, who heads the FSF, who are the authors of
the GFDL, this is not necessary. See for example this discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc…
.
Quote by RMS: "A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could
be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to
be." In this case, one volume of the work can be the image; the other
the GFDL.
When combining such an image with another GFDL'ed work (e.g. wikipedia),
one can just include a single copy of the license. Which is how we do it
at wikipedia, and how other people can use the image as well.
So, you copy a tiny image of the Internet and you have
to add 3 pages
of licensing text?
According to the above logic, a link to the GFDL wherever the image is
displayed is likely to be enough.
RMS's interpretation of the GFDL is not the only possible one, and one
should really ask the contributers of a GFDL'ed image for their
interpretation of the license... if you're really strict about it.
Which is a pain, yes. As other people have said, the GFDL is not really
a convenient license for wikipedia or images, or anything else really.
But it is possible to use GFDL'ed content without bending the rules too
much.
Eugene