Michael Snow wrote: > 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. > >
While I completely agree with you, the situation is somewhat different if you are downloading a work that has been previously published under GFDL. Then the decision is not whether to choose the GFDL license, but the decision is whether to download. I suggest the decision should be to download. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
