Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7    []

_

_

Hi Ram-Man,
I'm fairly sure no. 3 and 4 are not correct - what do you base those points on? --Fir0002 09:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3 is quite obvious because the text of the license says so. You must include a copy of the license along with the image. It can be either in physical or digital form, but it cannot be a link to some web address (with the exception of a web page, where you have to also host the copy, but can link to that copy, as Wikipedia does). You cannot link back to gnu.org or just provide the web address like you can with a Creative Commons license because that is not a copy.

Number 4 is just a rephrasing of the legal definition of a derivative work. Now it is possible for an image to be used in a "collective work", but this is unusual and not the normal usage. I could have just quoted the U.S. statute governing these terms, but then that wouldn't be as easy for everyone to understand either. It is simply not true that you can use any GFDL image with any text and not have that be a resulting derivative work. The rules for images are the same as the rules for text. If you copy text verbatim and add it to your document, that's exactly the same as copying a picture and adding it to your document. If either are GFDL, the entire document must be GFDL. Please see copyleft. I have this notice especially, because most people do not understand copyleft or the GFDL, so this has to be explicitly stated or people will violate my copyright. I have had infringers images taken down for this copyright violation in the past. When other users choose to ignore this type of violation when their own pictures are used, that is totally their business, but I won't allow it if they don't ask for the permission that I'm legally entitled to. The note on fairness is just plain common sense: people frequently try to rip off my work without properly licensing an image and without giving back their derivative works. They want something for nothing, but this isn't public domain, and that needs to be made very clear.

-- RM 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At WT:GEO I was wondering about the origin of city articles' DMS (decimal) coordinate format. I see Rambot created it in one article. Because clicking on a coordinate now shows both DMS and decimal coordinates, I was wondering why both formats were being used. Can you join the discussion there? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There also are plans over there to convert the various coordinate formats to {{coord}}, which I see conflicts which Rambot's Mapit. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]