Forum:BSD license ?

I'm working, over at fr.3d on some, many, articles about the Wings 3D free software. That software is under a BSD license, as stipulated on wikipedia. If we click the image of it that is on wikipedia, we can read "as a derivative work, this image should fall under the same license as the software". So, if i upload screen captures of Wings 3D, i must put a box saying they are under BSD ?

I dont know much about this BSD license. Does it conflict with GFDL or Wikia ? Wait... I just read on wikipedia that the BSD license is even closer to the public domain than the GFDL. This now seem kinda better than i was thinking...

Anyway, awaiting advices. Thanks. TulipVorlax 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait ! I just say it on wikipedia... It say "GPL compatible". But is GPL and GDFL the same ? TulipVorlax 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Images are completely different than using text content in a wiki. You can use images from any free-license and also use fair-use images. It doesn't matter if the license is the same as the wiki or if it's even compatible with the license. When you upload an image you always use a template to define what license the image itself is licensed under. And no, GPL and GFDL are not the same license. Though, just by common use, GPL is used in much the same way in software and artwork as GFDL is used for documentation. They are actually incompatible meaning you can't relicense one into the other. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Oct 8, 2007 @ 05:43 (UTC)
 * Yes, i know about the templates. ;-) I need to "produce" thoses templates on fr.3d. That is why i've passed the last hour or so, reading about this matter. I understand the incompatibility between GPL and GFDL . And from what i've read here and there, the BSD and the FreeBSD Documentation License seem kind of been their even more free conterpart and are supposely entirely compatible. Wikipedia pointed me there :.
 * Me, it's the "as a derivative work" part that tickle me because this could mean that every text i write on the BSD software should fall under the same license or the FreeBSD Doc one. But, since they are compatibles, does it mean we dont have to do anything ? No notice saying "this article is under the FreeBSD Doc..." ?
 * If so, i'll pursue my work without looking back on this matter.
 * As for the images, using the license selection combo-box is easy, so i'll make some pretty template. ;-) TulipVorlax 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a slow learner at times. I thimk i understand more now. There is a wikibooks on wings 3d (there) and the image they are using, even if it's a modifyed image, has a BSD box on it. But no BSD thing on the articles of the wiki book. I think it will be good doing that way. TulipVorlax 06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Erf! Not sure where to find a "free" BSD Deamon (Beastie) image to use, so i wont use it at first. TulipVorlax 07:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You should probably start at http://www.freebsd.org/logo.html#RESOURCE ... also the image is on commons at commons:Image:BSD-daemon.svg. --Splarka (talk) &lt;Staff&gt; 08:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I greatly prefer the second option, but i'm not sure to understand very well the license of this image. I have to buy a beer to the author ? Lol. And, it seems he's not the original author and that we should ask permission to the original author to use this.
 * Erf, i hate licenses... TulipVorlax 05:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)