At 15:00 -0800 24/2/09, AndrewRT wrote:
>On Feb 24, 1:46 am, geni wrote:
>> 2009/2/24 AndrewRT :
> >
>> > Just reading the news online and came across this article:
>>
> > >http://euobserver.com/851/27587
>>
> > > Look closely and you can see the picture cites "wikipedia"
>>
> > > I know pic
2009/2/24 AndrewRT :
> On Feb 24, 1:46 am, geni wrote:
>> 2009/2/24 AndrewRT :
>>
>> > Just reading the news online and came across this article:
>>
>> >http://euobserver.com/851/27587
>>
>> > Look closely and you can see the picture cites "wikipedia"
>>
>> > I know pictures often cite "AFP" like
On Feb 24, 1:46 am, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/24 AndrewRT :
>
> > Just reading the news online and came across this article:
>
> >http://euobserver.com/851/27587
>
> > Look closely and you can see the picture cites "wikipedia"
>
> > I know pictures often cite "AFP" like that - but is this enough under
2009/2/24 AndrewRT :
> Just reading the news online and came across this article:
>
> http://euobserver.com/851/27587
>
> Look closely and you can see the picture cites "wikipedia"
>
> I know pictures often cite "AFP" like that - but is this enough under
> the GDFL? If not, what is the procedure fo
2009/2/24 AndrewRT :
> Just reading the news online and came across this article:
>
> http://euobserver.com/851/27587
>
> Look closely and you can see the picture cites "wikipedia"
>
> I know pictures often cite "AFP" like that - but is this enough under
> the GDFL? If not, what is the procedure fo
That particlar image is not GFDL, It is (I believe) this image:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hpim3526.jpg
The license says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it
for any purpose, provided that credit is given and copyright is
attributed..", so it is certainly a violat
