[WikiEN-l] When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

[Fastfission]

On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license.  It's much more permissive
> > > than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos.
> > > By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
> >
> > Oh come on. We all know this is a special situation. I am so *bored*
> > with people saying, "But the Wikimedia logos are not licensed freely!"
> > and implying that this is somehow has any implications for policy.
> > They are the single and sole category of exception for a very
> > straightforward and practical legal reason.
> >
> > FF
>
> My whole point is that there are exceptions.  I do disagree with you
> though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical
> legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license,
> though.

I don't really know how you got the last sentence out of what I said,
but nevertheless I suppose I will say that of course other
corporations have practical reasons for not licensing things freely.

FF