Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mango hanging.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Mango hanging.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 08:24:33
Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Muhammad 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose boring composition --Andreas 06 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)- Support —kallerna™ 14:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. The long grass that extends from the soil passing behind the mango spoils even more your composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers; this "mango" looked like a grape at first. --staka.talk 03:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with others - Dcubillas (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers --Cayambe (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition, confused with licensing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Licensing? --Muhammad 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I have to tell you I am sorry. But you are right. It is not a file competition. It is image competition. So to say "license" here. It is irelvant. But yeah GFDL is a problem it is not the good license for the media, even I am not sure you are using it well.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- How am I not using it well (here it comes..) :) --Muhammad 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly let me explain, why GFDL license is usuitable for media. GFDL calls that all people who want to redistribute it and/or modify it, they should mention original author(s), link to the source and attached the license itself. This is OK in electronic version, but it is not OK in printed version. Imagine someone will like your pictures and they would like to make a calendar, book, whatever. Than GFDL license conditions are quite complicating it. So I am wondering why you are obdurately licensing GFDL 1.2 only?!
- And now anlaise your summary (which is quite confusing): "In using this image or any subsequent derivatives of it, you are required to release the image under the same license." - this is partly incorect and partly not necessary. The requirement to realease it also under GFDL 1.2 is done by the license itself, so there is no need to have here this phrase. More over "using this image" might be confusing. I can use this picture as a desctop of my personal computer and I dont need to credit you nor attached the license, because I am not redistributing it or its derivate. "As such, any reproduction of this image, in any medium, must appear with a copy of, or full URL of the license." - here I am not sure, if you can create your own conditions wich are colliding with the license itself. I can have a reproduction on my computer if I am not showing it to other people and I dont need any URL. That is something extra from you. According the license, if you distribute this work on electronic media, the GFDL license should stay on that server, where this work is placed. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I have to tell you I am sorry. But you are right. It is not a file competition. It is image competition. So to say "license" here. It is irelvant. But yeah GFDL is a problem it is not the good license for the media, even I am not sure you are using it well.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Licensing? --Muhammad 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
