On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 15:17 -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 21:16 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > Sheesh, it's not a satanic goat.
> >
> > This is all really, really, sad and pitiful.
>
> I agree it is a sad situation, but probably not for the reasons you
> think it is. Oh, wouldn't the world be so much simpler if people would
> just compromise their principles and "go with the flow"?
That's not a nice way to put things.
I'm quite sure that nearly all wikipedia image contributers
would be happy with most licenses that require that the images
remain non-proprietary, as ensured by the GPL and many of the
Creative Commons licenses. The GFDL is chosen pretty much by
default, because dual-licensing is a pain.
No principles need be compromised.
Many contributers, probably "most" but not "nearly all", would
even be happy with public domain or a BSD-style license.
> Hm, for that matter, shouldn't the copyright notices and licenses of
> media files we have imported into the stamps package be kept along with
> the files, just to satisfy the requirements of the licenses? Right now,
> all we seem to have is URLs to original sources & authors in the
> CHANGES.txt file.
I tried including DOD media ID numbers for many of the images,
but they got clobbered by some sort of automated translation.
|
