Yeah its incompatible, SA license requires
- *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may
distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible
license.
the is an exception that the copyright holder may waiver any condition of a
SA license.
The site licensing clearly isnt the same, similar or compatible.
Interestingly if the images are individually licensed cc-by-3.0 then they
are able to reuse without restriction or requesting a waiver.
The image in
http://euobserver.com/7/28830 is a cc-by-3.0 license while the
attribution isnt correct the resue is compatible
While the image in
http://euobserver.com/7/28767 is a satalite photograph,
which I have yet to locate on en:WP or Commons but the its either a PD
license or its a government agency license either way attribution shouldnt
be to WP
the other are proving a little difficult to track down for the purpose of
giving example in this email that the image may be reusable under a
different license than cc-by-sa
2009/10/23 Py mouss <pymouss44(a)gmail.com>
The license of the site
(
http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems to be
incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?
2009/10/22 Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se>
Nicolas Guérin wrote:
Well, there's no really need to cite
Wikipedia, because the license said
that the author (the person who took the picture) and the license should
be
mentionned. To cite "Wikipedia" is
welcome but not necessary.
Maybe we should just rename Wikimedia Commons to
you-are-free-to-reuse-it.org
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik -
http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/