[FM discuss] wikipedia images

[Derek Holzer]

Well, I hate to open the same can of worms *again*, but I'm still not 
convinced that a huge, complex software-specific license is appropriate 
for a completely non-software project. Espc when there are so many other 
options out there (GDFL, which seems to come with high recommendations 
from Wikipedia ;-), or any number of Creative Commons licenses). The way 
the GPL is written, espc in terms of "source code", is very vague when 
applied too non-software and could be just as difficult to legally 
implement as the GDFL seems to be. What do we give as "source code" when 
someone asks for it?

As the FSF themselves write:

"The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses 
that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and 
unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the 
book on paper would have to either include machine-readable "source 
code" of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written 
offer to send the "source code" later."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals

It often seems that people want to "port" this license from the software 
world to other projects for reasons of displaying an ideological 
affiliation rather then for applicable, practical reasons (i.e. 
licensing MP3 music as GPL, etc etc). Has the GPL ever been successfully 
used to protect a non-software project (i.e. in court)? Is there any 
legal precedent for that?

But I'm not a lawyer, and all the lawyer talk really bores the hell 
outta me when I could be busy makin' stuff. So I'm gonna get back to 
makin' stuff.

d.

adam hyde wrote:
> hey
> 
> sorry for the slow response, been at the beach
> 
> if we use images from wikipedia we have to use the gdfl which aint
> really possible as the gfdl is incompatible with the gpl.
> 
> I asked Florence Devouard (chair of wikipedia) what the story is about
> this, and if we can take stuff, and her response was 'wikipedia doesn't
> police its license'
> 
> so, i don't know where that puts us...personally i would rather all
> stuff on floss was absolutely free, as per gpl then its good to go for
> anything for all time...if that means making news images, its more time
> now, but makes for a better tomorrow ;)
> 
> anyone else have any thoughts on this?
> 
> adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 18:45 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:
>> Answering my own post:
>>
>> Apparently, we would also have to use the GFDL license:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations
>>
>> Adam, any thoughts on this? My current dilemma is whether to borrow the 
>> illustration of waveshapes from Wikipedia, or get someone (you, Sara...) 
>> to make a new version.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform
>>
>> It would sure help to be able to get images from Wikipedia and use them 
>> when needed, not just for myself but for future contributors.
>>
>> best,
>> d.
>>
>> Derek Holzer wrote:
>>> If I want to use a Wikipedia image in my tutorial (all Wikipedia is GNU 
>>> Free Documentation License), how should I attribute it? Or is it 
>>> incompatible with the license we use?
>>>
>>> d.

-- 
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista
---Oblique Strategy # 185:
"Which parts can be grouped?"