Image talk:Solaris10.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The copyright shoudl be changed on this page...I dont know which copyright this image would fall under, but it would be an OSS one, not needing the fair use clause.



In the license caption it says, "This screenshot is of a program that has been released under a free software license. As a derivative work of that program, this screenshot falls under the same license.". I do not think this is the case. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the Free Software Foundations FAQ about the GPL's, and it says that just using a gpl'd program does not automatically make the results of that program a derivative work. From the FSF FAQ Website [1]


Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from. So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case. You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.

You CAN do so, by releasing your program itself with a license that states the output is covered by the GPL. Such a clause would be considered a contract, and subject to all the open questions about 'shrinkwrap' or 'clickwrap' EULAs. Note IANAL. 131.111.228.219 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, in order to ensure that the image has a copy-left license, than one would have to take a screenshot, and then post here if they choose to do so, but just because the image was created with a GPL'd program does not mean that is a derivative work.

Duneatreides 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC) DuneAtreides

You've misread the copyright statement. "the software" in all cases refers to the program being screenshotted, not the program capturing and manipulating said screenshot. Chris Cunningham 11:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The program may not be entirely GPL anyway. The graphical element (things like the window decorations and start button equivalent) are quite possibly not covered by it, and since showing them is presumably the main purpose of the screenshot, it is possibly not GPL. Analogously, a screenshot of a Wikipedia page would not be GPL - it wouldn't be fully GFDL either (since the Wikipedia logo isn't, for a start). 131.111.228.219 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the image is GPLed by virtue of being a screenshot of the operation of GPL software; IANAL, but I don't think this is what was intended by the phrase "derivative work." That said, I imagine that the creator of the screenshot GPLed it by virtue of calling it that, regardless of the validity of the legal theory enacted in the statement of his license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.116.179 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots this small aren't very useful, imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.45.200 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

When people were considering this a 'fair use' image, as opposed to a free image, low resolution is considered necessary. Though this goes a bit far. 131.111.228.219 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to commons?

I am against moving to the commons, because it's a lousy quality image, with a licensing question over its head. 131.111.228.219 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)