File:Willett memorial.JPG

Summary

Memorial to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Willett" class="extiw" title="en:William Willett">en:William Willett</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petts_Wood" class="extiw" title="en:Petts Wood">en:Petts Wood</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London" class="extiw" title="en:London">en:London</a>.

The Public Monument and Sculpture Association National Recording Project <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://pmsa.cch.kcl.ac.uk/UEL/BR086.htm">reports</a> that this monolith was designed by G.W. Miller, unveiled 1927-05-21, and is in a glade in Willett Memorial Wood in Petts Wood, on the edge of St Paul's Cray Common to the east of the main north-south bridle path.

The inscription HORAS NON / NUMERO / NISI ÆSTIVAS [AE elided] can be translated "I tell only the summer hours." Lower down is inscribed "SUMMER TIME ACT 1925"; this act made daylight savimg time permanent in the UK.

I took this picture myself and am releasing it into the public domain. Actually, I suppose I'd better explain why I always make these pictures PD instead of GDFL. There are several reasons.

First I don't fully understand all the GFDL Licence anyway. I mean, what on earth has uploading pictures got to do with writing manuals for computer software? And why do you need to be licensed before they'll let you write manuals anyway? Is it to make sure that you're fully qualified? And where do you apply for the licence? I looked in my post office and they had forms to apply for driving licences and for TV licences but not for GDFL licences. So, I guess I won't be allowed to write any computer manuals then, but why should that stop me uploading pictures!?!

Second, even if I did understand the licence and how to get one, I wouldn't want it anyway. Take this picture for example. I didn't design the memorial, I had no say at all in what it looks like. Why should I have any rights over a reproduction of its likeness? If those rights belong to anyone, it should be the original designer. He did all the hard work, all I did was point the camera and click. Nothing more? It's morally wrong for me to claim any rights at all, even the minimal rights granted under the GFDL.

Finally, even if were entitled to those rights, I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life constantly checking everywhere to make sure that the picture was being used in accordance with the arbitrary, bureaucratic regulations that the GFDL imposes. I'd rather just forget about it and get on with better things to do. It does seem just a little bit pointless: just a couple of seconds to take the picture, and a lifetime of checking afterwards. Still, maybe the sort of people who are dull enough to write computer manuals are also dull enough to enjoy checking what's happening to their pictures all the time...?

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:P_Ingerson" class="extiw" title="en:User:P Ingerson"></a> — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:P_Ingerson" class="extiw" title="en:User:P Ingerson">P Ingerson</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:P_Ingerson" class="extiw" title="en:User talk:P Ingerson">(talk)</a> 28 June 2005 09:48 (UTC)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_of_England" class="extiw" title="en:Category:Images of England">en:Category:Images of England</a>

Licensing

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.