This is right, it can be used and copied, but not sold for profit without explicit consent. What is wrong with that? This is common on the wiki. Snowman10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Is is not allowed, Wikipedia:Non-free content says "it must have no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to use, redistribute, or modify the content for any purpose.". // Liftarn
Most people do not want to publish images for profit, so it is not a significant restriction, it my opinion. What about this: Licenses/NC#The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License#Conclusions#For content users. I am reading about these copyright and copyleft issues, I thought I was using a copyright that was suitable for the wiki. I will change the bendibus licience, but I will leave the River licience to have it tested here. I would be prepared to chage the copyright licience rather than have it deleted, because it would be easier to to that thay re-upload them again with a new copyright tag, so please keep me informed. Snowman12:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NC images are not allowed. Removing that requirement solves the issue. Just use a plain vanilla CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL. // Liftarn
Erm, the first image is okay, but the "permission" section on the second image is disingenuous. I can make profit off of any GFDL-licensed material as long as I obey the terms of the GFDL license. So the statement "This image or any reproductions/customizations thereof (...) may NOT be sold without my explicit consent" is wrong. --Iamunknown18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you also remove "GFDL-self. This image is released under the GFDL-self license and is considered freely distributable. This image or any reproductions/customizations thereof (or any reproductions/customizations of its reproductions/customizations, and so forth) may NOT be sold without my explicit consent." Its incorrect. --Iamunknown01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
