On 8/14/06, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
While such licences are free-ish I don't think they would fall fully within the definition of free content (thouh IANAL). Either way they would not be compatable with the GFDL licence, since it does not put any restrictions on who can use a work or for what purpose, and unless I'm mistaken GFDL compatability is the acid test for wether or not something is allowed on Commons.
These are unfree licenses. Like any other 'non commercial' license they create a huge area of grey... For example, if we sell a Wikipedia DVD to help fun the project is that commercial exploitation?
This is no new revelation. Photographs of copyrighted art must be released under a free license by all copyright holders. Photographs which incidentally include copyrighted works do not concern us.