Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Michael Snow wrote: > >> Marco Chiesa wrote: >> >>> Commons accepts materials that are free according to >>> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that >>> definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and >>> we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we >>> cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that >>> works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst >>> feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's >>> no reason to stop doing it. >>> >> In terms of our policy, I agree with this. That being said, for anyone >> deciding what license to choose when contributing to Wikimedia Commons - >> I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under >> the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a >> GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when >> applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the >> dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful. >> > While I completely agree with you, the situation is somewhat > different if you are downloading a work that has been previously > published under GFDL. Then the decision is not whether to > choose the GFDL license, but the decision is whether to download. > > I suggest the decision should be to download. > Right, that's why I focused my comments on people who are in a position to choose the license.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l