[FM discuss] wikipedia images

[adam hyde]

hey derek...

the gpl can be used for non-software:

"any work of any nature that can be copyrighted can be copylefted with
the GNU GPL."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html


this is implemented to ease the transition:
http://en.flossmanuals.net/license



adam




On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 19:42 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote: 
> 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.
> 
-- 


adam hyde
floss manuals

free manuals for free software
http://www.flossmanuals.net

mobile : + 31 6 154 22770 (Netherlands mobile)
email : adam at flossmanuals.net