John Tex wrote:
Commons should focus first and foremost on being a shared repository of images usable by multiple Wikimedia Foundation projects. Focusing too much on "re-use" and "copyleft" is a distraction to what should be the main goal of the Commons: supporting the other projects. "Viral copyleft" is fine as a secondary goal.
Best, John
In my opinion, Commons has long become a project in its own right. It should focus on being a repository of free, reusable media; Being a service to Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects is of course *a* goal of commons, but not *the* purpose of the project any more.
That being said, all kinds of free (but not NC or ND!) licenses are, and should be, acceptable on commons, ranging form do-what-you-want to strongly "viral" copyleft.
The only problem I see is with "strongly viral" copyleft licenses other than the GFDL - material under such a license would not be usable for other WMF projects. In fact, it can't even be used on commons really, because text (and pages) on commons are GFDL, can thus can't use media that requires the entirety of the work to be under a different license. This is the nasty side effect of mutually incompatible copyleft licenses - and the stronger the "virality" is, the more problematic the incompatibility becomes.
-- Daniel