Hoi,
My opinion is that the CC-by-sa has always been the right license. The GFDL
served us well and I am really grateful to the FSF that they were so
gracious to allow us to move over to the CC-by-sa. The CC-by-sa is a
different license and it was the accepted wisdom that CC-by-sa material
could be
2009/8/6 Gerard Meijssen :
> It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again,
> Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently it
> is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its material.
So, your opinion is that Wikipedia (et al.)
Hoi,
It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again,
Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently it
is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its material.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/8/5 Petr Kadlec
> 2009/8/4 Gregory Maxwell
2009/8/4 Gregory Maxwell :
> GFDL licensed images are still perfectly usable in freely licensed
> reference works, in spite of the inconveniences in the license.
I am not sure what you mean, exactly. Do you consider GFDL to be
“strong copyleft”, i.e. that the viral clause applies to the text
surr
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 c
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> I don't think I'd be so quick to blame Creative Commons for this,
> regardless of the advice they've given. It seems like most people
> reusing copyleft materials in good faith do so without fully
> understanding the concept, advice or no advice
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> 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 lice
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
[snip]
> 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 radicall
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 dismi
Hoi,
Please note that I only call for no more new uploads of GFDL material. Also
my main argument is ignored; the ability and surety that such documents can
be legally used by our downstream users of our content.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/8/4 Marco Chiesa
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gera
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard
Meijssen wrote:
> The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the
> CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong
> license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are
> compatible does not ma
Hoi,
The purpose of Wikipedia and its sister projects is to make material
available and have it used as widely as possible. The fact that we have two
licenses is a reasonable compromise because it allows everyone who remained
on the GFDL to continue to use our material. The purpose of the change ha
Petr Kadlec, 04/08/2009 10:34:
> I have said this to you before: GFDL has never been incompatible with
> CC in the context of embedding images in encyclopedic text.
Still, it's quite awful to have to comply to two licenses to reproduce
one article (CC-BY-SA for text + GFDL for images): then, you
2009/8/4 Gerard Meijssen :
> Uploading material that is incompatible with our license, I would personally
> consider it a bad faith move. Only when it is considered that the inclusion
> of a GFDL file is similar to fair use within the context of a Wikipedia
> clone would it be acceptable. This howe
Hello,
Wikimedia prefers material under a CC license but it will stay possible to
upload gfdl only material.
But whenever its possible try to upload it under a cc-by license or a dual
license.
Best regards,
Huib
--
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
__
Hoi,
Uploading material that is incompatible with our license, I would personally
consider it a bad faith move. Only when it is considered that the inclusion
of a GFDL file is similar to fair use within the context of a Wikipedia
clone would it be acceptable. This however possibly negates the reaso
mizusumashi, 25/07/2009 16:54:
> Q1) All media files that have been licensed under the GFDL and allowed
> to relicense under CC-BY-SA were relicensed by
> [[wmf:Resolution:Licensing update approval]]?
Yes, all GFDL "1.2 and later". See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GFDL_1.3_relicensin
Hello everyone.
I have two questions.
Q1) All media files that have been licensed under the GFDL and allowed
to relicense under CC-BY-SA were relicensed by
[[wmf:Resolution:Licensing update approval]]?
Q2) Now, I know, we can't import text licensed under not CC-BY-SA but
only GFDL. How about me
19 matches
Mail list logo
