On 8/14/06, Sherool <jamydlan(a)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.