>From the legal code, Section 4(a): "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform". [1]

And also... "You may not sublicense the Work". So, a CC-BY-SA work is not sub-licensable as required by the terms of use of FB.

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

Vicenç

> From: odder.wiki@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:12:39 +0200
> To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] CC-BY on Facebook
>
> Hi Matthew,
> I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC
> BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not
> require linking to its text (at
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>), not to mention
> pasting the whole text.
>
> The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified
> by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the
> name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into
> consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to
> link to the licence, agreed.
>
> On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against
> Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a
> "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide"
> licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially
> if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having
> such a phrase in their Terms of Use.
>
> --
> Tomasz W. Kozłowski
> a.k.a. [[user:odder]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
> WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org