File talk:BD-propagande colour en.jpg

What a geeky cartoon!!!!

Great cartoon. Very informative!—the preceding unsigned comment is by Splette (talk • contribs)

Don't want a WASP cartoon, I don't care--Andersmusician $ 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it. MicroX 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people might call this Creative Commons propaganda. Many people have valid reasons, both practical and philosophical for using GFDL only. heqs 03:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely what it is. Rama 07:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Is it just me or is the word license spelled wrong in the last box? It is spelled licence, when it should be license. EvanS 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on your flavo(u)r of English. License is the mainly North American spelling (of the noun; the verb is always spelt–or spelled, if you prefer–with an s). —LX (talk, contribs) 23:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oversimplification?

Sorry for the somewhat noobish question, but I'm kind of bothered about this comic, which has never made much sense to me. The message, if I understand correctly, is that the GDFL (under which Wikipedia is registered as a whole) is too complicated and unwieldy, and therefore images should be registered under the CC license. The rationale is that a three-page licence (GDFL) is okay to register a whole encyclopedia, but images are best registered using a simple half-page licence (CC). Makes sense.
But, as the comic explitely states, images should be licensed under both CC and GDFL. So as I understand it, the comic says "It's ridiculous to register a simple photograph using a three-page license... so let's register it using a three-and-a-half-page license instead!". Obviously this interpretation gets a huge "wtf" from a random reader such as myself, and puts into question the very usefulness of the comic.
This isn't a question on the relevance of a double licensing system, I'm sure from a legal standpoint it makes perfect sense. But the argument behind the cartoon just seems completely invalid. I understand that it's nice to simplify an argument for the sake of clarity, but in this case it's been simplified to the point where the premise (ie "GDFL is cumbersome") and the conclusion (ie "we should use a double-license") simply seem unrelated. 85.27.15.203 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is simply that if you wish to allow your image to be reused with attribution, granting a dual GFDL & Creative Commons license will allow it to be used in more contexts than licensing with GFDL alone. -- Infrogmation 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that the GFDL is too complicated. It is that the GFDL has to be reproduced in its entirety with the work. CC-by-sa, on the other had, can simply be mentioned by name.

This makes CC-by-sa much better suited to usage in printed works, especially small ones like fliers or small papers. On the other hand, GFDL is the licence of Wikipedia, and is better suited for compatibility with it. Rama 10:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but this would only make sense if CC was to be used instead of GDFL, while the comic clearly mentions the need to use both. And since media is registered using the GDFL (among others, granted, but still), doesn't the licence need to be fully included anyway no matter whether it's the only license or not? 83.182.156.230 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Dual licencing allows you to use the terms of the licence of your choice. Rama 17:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GFDL also can be added to the image. It is a simple and easy abbreviation, easier than CC.--147.84.199.21 10:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Think about it…"

The comic is not very helpful, as it makes sense only if you already know the issue involved, namely that the GFDL requires you to include the text of the licence. Nothing in the cartoon points to this, and without this understanding the cartoon is mystifying. (It can be interpreted as "three pages is too complicated", which is what the previous discussion on this page seems to have done.) Can it be changed somehow to say that the GFDL requires the text to be included? Shreevatsa (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How patronising!

This cartoon is so off-putting for the people it is directed at.

Users come here, looking for guidance on how to choose a suitable license for the image they have uploaded. Instead of useful advice, they find a cartoon which tells them that even children know that one license isn't good enough, they ought to use two. It doesn't tell them why they should use two, or what the result is (does it impose all the restrictions in either of the licenses? or if not, why not just use the less restrictive license?). And worse, it doesn't tell them how to do it: the upload form does not offer a way of selecting two licenses. Maproom (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Was there any base file for this image for use by the Localized media template

This image is found in many languages (thanks to the translators). However for effective use by the Localized media template this image needs a base file that has a name without the language code in it. I searched for it but could find only translated images for this image. Did this image have any base file that has been deleted ? If no, then is it ok to make the english version a base file by renaming it. --Kaartic (talk)