Nicolas Guérin wrote:

Well, there's no really need to cite Wikipedia, because the license said that the author (the person who took the picture) and the license should be mentionned. To cite "Wikipedia" is welcome but not necessary.

Maybe we should just rename Wikimedia Commons to you-are-free-to-reuse-it.org

Yeah its incompatible, SA license requires

- *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

the is an exception that the copyright holder may waiver any condition of a SA license.

The site licensing clearly isnt the same, similar or compatible. Interestingly if the images are individually licensed cc-by-3.0 then they are able to reuse without restriction or requesting a waiver.

The image in http://euobserver.com/7/28830 is a cc-by-3.0 license while the attribution isnt correct the resue is compatible While the image in http://euobserver.com/7/28767 is a satalite photograph, which I have yet to locate on en:WP or Commons but the its either a PD license or its a government agency license either way attribution shouldnt be to WP

the other are proving a little difficult to track down for the purpose of giving example in this email that the image may be reusable under a different license than cc-by-sa

2009/10/23 Py mouss pymouss44@gmail.com

The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems to be incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?

2009/10/22 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se

Nicolas Guérin wrote:

...

...

Well, there's no really need to cite Wikipedia, because the license said that the author (the person who took the picture) and the license should

be

...

mentionned. To cite "Wikipedia" is welcome but not necessary.

Maybe we should just rename Wikimedia Commons to you-are-free-to-reuse-it.org

-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

----- "Yann Forget" yann@forget-me.net wrote:

From: "Yann Forget" yann@forget-me.net

Py mouss wrote:

...

The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems to be incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?

What the license of the site has to do with the image ? The site is certainly not a derivative of the image, so I don't see the relation.

Whilst I'd never pretend to know anything about copyright, that would also be my interpretation. The "SA" in CC-BY-SA refers to derivative works - i.e. where you change, modify, etc the picture itself. Merely putting the CC-BY-SA picture next to text doesn't create a derivative work, so the text would not have to be CC-BY-SA'd

Andrew

2009/10/25 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de

This is a matter of much debate and disagreement, as old as copyleft licenses. It's "strong" or "viral" copyleft vs. "weak" or "soft" copyleft. Traditionally, the FSF takes teh side of strong copyleft with the GFDL, and the CC crowd tends more towards the weak variant, implying that the share-alike requirement does not apply to "aggregate" works, only "true" derivatives. To me, that makes more sense in practice, even though it may be less desierable in principle. The distinction is tricky, however.

I can't force anyone, but I'll post my own contributions as PD, if allowed, and I encourage other to post their contributions as PD too, if they like.

Alex

Meanwhile, here's a rather more prestigious reuser, with correct attributions and licenses:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/

- d.