This discussion is making my head spin... Let me see if I can get the basics in order for myself (please, let me know if I don't have it right): * Everyone basically agrees that the text (not including quotes, which I don't intend to discuss here) of Wikipedia is okay, even if the text refers to an image that is fair use. * Everyone agrees that The en Wikipedia has some images that we are legally allowed to use (on the website) under fair use assuming that we don't claim they are GFDL. * Most everyone agrees that there is little chance that we can get the copyright holders of every image to switch to a GFDL license. This said, some people say that we can't distribute the images with the GFDL products, as it would violate the license. * Most everyone has decided what they think, and will argue his/her opinion until the cows come home (and then some). If I understand correctly, the problem is most evident when we consider printed formats (like grandma's encyclopedia). I don't think that anyone has argued that we can distribute fair use images if we go to a printed (combined) work. So, fair use images should not be in a printed version. This said, it seems reasonable to say that articles that *NEED* an image should have GFDL images only. Articles that benefit from images should use GFDL images or shouldn't talk about the images (don't say "image below" or the like) as fair use images will not appear in a printed version. As I understand it, there are people who would argue that this is unacceptable, and that some articles *NEED* an image where no GFDL images is available. I'd love to hear of 1 or 2 possibilities where an article is unacceptable without an image, and where a GFDL picture or drawing would not suffice. -- "Jason C. Richey" <jasonr(a)bomis.com>