On 2/10/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm... I wouldn't consider some writing
illustrated with an image of
mine to be a deriviative work of my image.
Would you consider a film with a music composition a derivative of the
music? CC-BY-SA does. I'm not sure I would get hung up on the exact
meanings of "derivative work"; I think it makes more sense to
emphasize the _semantic relationship_ between two combined works.
If CC's "SA" were to acquire this
meaning, we'd have to disallow it
for all Wikimedia projects that are GFDL, wouldn't we?
Not necessarily. CC-BY-SA 3.0 will include a compatibility clause:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234
If this will include the GFDL, a strong copyleft CC-BY-SA would allow
a third party to either comply, or migrate to a compatible license.
We've always held that GFDL combined with other pictures and media are
"mere aggregations", so it may be in our interest not to advocate a
strict interpretation of existing licenses. But it doesn't seem at all
unreasonable to me to desire stronger copyleft protection for works
which are, in their nature, unlikely to be significantly modified
directly.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.