Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 4:52 AM, Javier Candeira
<javier(a)candeira.com> wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I do not believe there is any point to having a
copyleft license for
media which isn't strong. Does anyone here disagree?
I do, my photos are
by-sa but newspaper using them for illustration doesn't
have to be (that's my intention when licensing, at least them), as long as
the photos themselves are labeled with the proper attribution and licensing.
Greetings. Why not use the cc-by license instead? It has the same
attribution behavior as cc-by-sa.
For many of us, we want to use cc-by-sa because we want the copyleft
provision, while at the same time, we do not intend to "overreach" by
claiming an expansive vision of "derivative work".
If you take my cc-by-sa image and modify it, I insist that your modified
version be made available under cc-by-sa. If you merely use my image
*near* something else, then I do not insist that your entire work be
made available under cc-by-sa, because I do not believe that your
newspaper article is a "derivative work" of my photograph.
(There can be edge cases, of course, but they are a bit difficult to
construct.)
A desire for "strong copyleft" should not lead us into overly expansive
claims of copyright on interactions that do not actually constitute the
making of a derivative work.
--Jimbo