Marco Chiesa wrote: > Commons accepts materials that are free according to > http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that > definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and > we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we > cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that > works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst > feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's > no reason to stop doing it. > In terms of our policy, I agree with this. That being said, for anyone deciding what license to choose when contributing to Wikimedia Commons - I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
