[WikiEN-l] GFDL and images

[K P]

On 6/11/07, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Eugene,
>
> > 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/d04e3fc61800f867/5847311e34354d6a .
> >
> > 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.
>
> Excuse me, but does that pass WP:RS?
>
> <snip/>
>
> > 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.
>
> It strikes me that, for those of us who are not Richard Stallman, GFDL
> is quite poor for any purpose you'd care to name.  But we're stuck with
> it, I suppose.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
> in the leg by a personal friend."
> - P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
>

Precisely why are we stuck with it?  If it were an article it would be
up for deletion.