Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote: [...]
After rereading the CC-BY legal code it does appear you (and others who made this point) are correct, and I was quite mistaken about the strength of the CC-BY license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License."
Indeed it seems CC-BY is already the "weak copyleft" I was thinking CC-BY-SA is... CC-BY is much stronger than I realised. I thought CC-BY just meant "include a byline with my name".
No it isn't, there is one important difference: derivative work, i.e. modified versions. Again, compare to the LGPL: modified versions must be distributed under the same license (though larger works which use/incorporate clearly demarked LGPL components do not). This is not true for CC-BY: if i make a derivative of a CC-BY work, I have to attribute the author, but i can license my version under whatever conditions i like. That's not weak copyleft, that's no copyleft at all.
I like that concaption. However, as simple it is to differenciate when it's a text/image issue, what happens when the modified version is also an image, but breader. Eg. the virgin case. Is that a composition of your photo with the text and background (it would have been composed in layers) or simply a derivative work?
The LGPL doesn't either define the difference.
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
something like "CC-BY-SA/commons-mod".
Don't call it so. People would start confusing it with Cc-by-sa. Maybe CC-BY-LSA (Less Share-Alike) following LGPL sample?