On 8/24/14, 9:34 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
I can kinda understand why the software doesn't deal with messed-up situations like this - it shouldn't need to do so in the first place. I hope that we as a community can fix this by sensible licensing choices, rather than blaming the software.
I don't think the GFDL question and the software question are really the same. The software should attribute people better than it does, and IMO it still does not do it properly with the new image you swapped in. All the (current) PDF-generator does is append a list of the usernames of people who've edited the image's description page. This is not really good attribution: 1) it does not actually mention the license; 2) it fails to actually identify the author of the image (vs. people who've done other things like added a category link to the image's description page); and 3) it does not attribute photographers with their real name, even when known.
Absent non-cc-licensed GFDL images, doing that may not be *legally* required, but I think it's good practice and friendlier to do so.
-Mark _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
