Yeah, I don't see anything in that which implies that CC-BY-SA isn't compatible. The exact wording is: "As your question illustrates, people have a tendency to disregard the differences between the various Creative Commons licenses, lumping them together as a single thing. That is as mixed-up as supposing San Francisco and Death Valley have similar weather because they're both in California. "Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial. "I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely." I'm not sure that's meant to imply license incompatibility. It sounds to me like RMS is just saying, "I don't support Creative Commons as a project, because some of their licenses are not free at all." However it's clearly not the case that all CC licenses are non-free, and whether RMS supports CC as a project may not mean anything in terms of license compatibility. (Personally I think it is clear that RMS would never really support something like CC; he's very absolutist and CC is very much about finding various forms of compromise.) FF On 2/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: