Brianna Laugher wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The question of "does anyone here want a
weak copyleft license" is just
the far more interesting one...
I do not believe there is any point to having a copyleft license for
media which isn't strong. Does anyone here disagree?
At the risk of being stoned... yeah. I just don't consider an article
that uses a photograph of mine as illustration to be a derivative of my
work. I don't want an article, blog or book author to have to license
their whole text under CC-BY-SA just because they use my image. HOWEVER, I
do want them to be obliged to make explicit the license of my work, that
is offer it to others under the same conditions.
I strongly agree with this. It is simply impossible for many content
producers—for example, newspaper or textbook publishers—to release their
entire works under a viral copyleft license, but including a CC-BY-SA photo
with a mention of the license is perfectly acceptable. I believe that an
all-or nothing approach here will elicit a unanimous "nothing!" from these
commercial content producers: requiring all reusers to release their stuff
under CC-BY-SA will be unacceptable, and so they won't use *any* copyleft
content. We'd just be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Regards,
--
Benjamin D. Esham
E-mail/Jabber: bdesham(a)gmail.com | AIM bdesham128 | PGP D676BB9A
"Given that sooner or later we're all just going to die, what's
the point of learning about integers?" — Calvin