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 petr.kad...@gmail.com
2009/8/6 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
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
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
2009/8/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
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
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
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard
Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com 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
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 chiesa.ma...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 4,
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net 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
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net 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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
