Gnu Free Documentation License Puns

Hi guys, I am at my wits end with an attribution issue for images under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 only.

I actually asked for advice in the Creative Commons Reddit page to no avail, but I realized i should have come here on the actual GNU page first.

I need some help with giving attribution with the “GNU Free Documentation License 1.2” for use of images only. It's for using images for a book. Not software.

I am writing an aviation book and want to use the photos from Wikimedia Commons. The photos that I need are mainly on the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2, only. Here is an example of one photo I’d like to use:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_727-251(Adv),_Northwest_Airlines_JP6401202.jpg

Now my questions are:

1. If the photos are only under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, would there be any problem with that? As you see from the above example it is not linked to any CC license, it states it’s usable only under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2.

Here is an example of another guy’s link of the GNU V1.2 license which is actually linked to the CC licenses: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mirage3-12.jpg

So, I’m not sure what’s going on here, can I actually use any image in my book that has this “V1.2 only” in its clause?

2. My next problem is giving proper attribution to the photographer. So, any help with the proper accreditation would be appreciated.

Here is my example of my attribution for the photo. I copied this format from the photo credits from a science book which used photographs with the GNU v1.2 license, and I adjusted it for my use

The example below is for the first link above of the Northwest Airlines image :

“Image by Jon Proctor. Retrieved June 24, 2020, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_727-251(Adv),_Northwest_Airlines_JP6401202.jpg. This file is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_License; with no invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-CoverTexts.”

So, my question is; is this the right way to give full attribution to the photographer?

Hopefully someone here could set me straight with this issue. Any help woul

So there's a website online that contains content that is under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 and I'm trying to understand this.

Does that mean that I am free to display the exact same data on another website (that might contain ads to generate revenue)?

P.S. I've also posted this to /r/legaladviceuk

Wikipedia/Wikimedia has a lot of good images. From time to time I am tempted to alter some of their images and use them on web pages I create. I am curious to how I should accommodate the criterias that comes with the licenses.

A criteria in Creative Commons is: > You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

A criteria in GNU Free Documentation License is: >All previous authors of the work must be attributed.

What is a good way to give attribution? I am thinking that the longdesc attribute of an image might be suitable for this, however, sometimes an image can be used as a background-image with CSS. Optionally, will a dedicated webpage where I list all the images I use and give credit to each individual image be a good way?

For instance, how would you attribute the following image used in the both the img tag and as a background-image in CSS?

Clock Tower - Palace of Westminister

Edit: Is using metadata in the imagefile an option?

Hi, I am trying to compile some C code to RISC-V but I don't know how to output hex file instruction or assembly dump file using riscv-gnu-toolchain. I am looking for documentation in the github page but don't find anything. Does anyone know any documentation or tutorial for this tool?

https://www.darlinghq.org/

I'm currently creating study material for Computer science to help everyone study for free. I don't want them to get ripped off by expensive deals from greedy companies. Which license should I use to prevent my work from being used for commercial purposes

I am currently writing some documentation for GNU Guix cookbook at https://jitsi.member.fsf.org/guix password guix.

I'll be sharing my screen, embarrassing life stories, and dad jokes. Ya'll are welcome to join.

#guix #liveDocumentationWriting #cookbook

The official documentation tends to be quiet awful or overly complicated. Does anyone have any tips or resources for better learning what all the blocks do?

I also could use some better understanding of the data being passed from block to block. I'm trying to avoid sifting through the code, as it would be quite tedious to do so.

Any suggestions are appreciated!

what about you?

I'm approved for real ID online meaning they have everything they need for me to get it on the computer.

but do I still need to bring the documentation in person when I go get my license renewed tomorrow? I have a camera card already so I think I just pay again and ask them to make my license real ID?

This process is so confusing lol!

from wired.co.uk (beware of non-free Javascript)

>The main points of contention are the directive's Article 11 and Article 13 — which detractors have dubbed, respectively, the "hyperlink tax" and the "upload filter."

>Article 11 would require internet companies to pay news outlets for hosting their content on their platforms. While this has been welcomed by some news corporations, others suggested that this would force social media companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter to pay news organisation in order to feature as little as two words — or a hyperlink — from their news stories. Article 11 states that publishing "insubstantial parts of a press publication" should not be subjected to the norm, but fails to give a clear definition of what "insubstantial" boils down to. Does it mean a hyperlink snippet? A sentence? A word?

>Article 13 is — if possible — even more controversial, earning itself the reputation of a "meme killer." It would require web giants to automatically filter copyrighted material — songs, images, videos — uploaded on their platforms, unless it has been specifically licensed. Despite its divisiveness, the piece of legislation passed by 438 votes to 226 with 39 abstentions in the European Parliament.

Joshua Gay is a free software and free culture activist. As the Free Software Foundation's Licensing & Compliance Manager, he works to help educate the public on free software licensing and the GPL, certify and endorse hardware products and operating systems that only use and only recommend free software, and he enforces the GNU GPL and other licenses on GNU projects for which the FSF has been assigned copyright. You can read a bit of what he and his team have been up to over the past year and what they hope to do more of in the coming year in their latest blog post: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-licensing-team-doing-even-more-in-2014

My Proof: https://status.fsf.org/notice/45178

Update: A big thank you! to everyone -- you asked some really great questions! I am off for the night, but, please feel free to email licensing@fsf.org anytime and we'll do our best to answer any questions you have!

Hey, wondering if anyone is interested in taking this off my hands, I find myself using Kontakt & Serum mostly. Open to offers.

So there's a website online that contains content that is under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 and I'm trying to understand this.

Does that mean that I am free to use the same data exactly on another website (that might contains ads to generate revenue)?