Sherool 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.
Note that we already have "free" content on the Commons that is, really, unfree to use in some ways for reasons other than copyright. For instance, take a free photograph of somebody and use it in an advertisement; in many countries, you can get sued for abusive use of that person's image.
Whether content free for educational and informational usage but not for advertisement should be accepted on commons is a different question from whether they should be accepted in the projects. My personal point of view is that the projects should accept such content, for this content is on a much sounder legal ground than a lot of our "fair use" claims.
-- DM