--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
No, the
precise thing we need is that the copyright holder releases
the picture under GFDL.
Also fine, but again, expensive, because it deviates from usual
licensing policies.
I'm not sure we should assume this before having tried. One could argue
that this should actually be pretty cheap:
* GFDL materials are useless for most commercial enterprises
* if they refuse to release under GFDL, we can always threaten to take
it under fair use, which means that they neither get author recognition
nor money.
I don't see the slippery slope, sorry.
I don't either. It's either freely distributable/modifiable or it
isn't.
A "fair use is not allowed" stance is
neither
balanced nor logical. I have not seen your response to my
analysis that conluded that quotations are more problematic
than images.
If I understood correctly, you argue that quotes are embedded in the
text while images are kept in separate files, thus GFDL is not
inherited by the photo but is inherited by the quotes. This is
incorrect. Derivative work are required to be under GFDL; what
constitutes a derivative work is defined by copyright law. The
technical detail that text and images are typically kept in separate
files is irrelevant; illustrating an article by adding a picture is a
classical case of a derivative work. Moving quotes out of the main text
and then "including" them somehow is a technical gimmick that doesn't
change anything: adding a quote also creates a derivative work.
So yes, fair use quotes are technically violations of GFDL, but
completely harmless. Nobody wants to change quotes anyway, and fair use
quotes are typically minute parts the work they originate from. Even
commercial redistributors can use those quotes under fair use. All
three of the above are false for images.
Axel
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com