Forum Moderators: not2easy
As far as I can make out, this basically means you can use the image on your own site, but you have to credit the original designer when you use the icons.
The thing is, how the heck are you meant to do that in practical terms when we're just talking about a tiny picture less than 100 pixels across? Such a credit would take up more room than the image itself, surely this isn't what they intended with the licence?
The terms of the licence itself aren't much use, they say you have to "conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty". This doesn't suit graphics at all, especially small graphics.
It makes me wonder what the point of Wikimedia Commons is when it uses licences written to describe software in order to cover distribution of images.
Personally, I would think that it is not your job to include a copyright message that is not there in the first place. And the GPL does not require giving any credit beyond maintaining the original copyright notices, at least that I am aware of.
I had a look round and a lot of the images have either GPL or GNU, none of which can apply properly to images. GNU is meant for documents rather than images, it even talks about what to include on the front page of the item being licenced.
Why do the people submitting the images do this?
