Robert Rohde wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 3:32 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Greg will of course correct me if I'm wrong - but I suspect the problem is that lots of people want CC-by-sa because it's easier to reuse stuff ... but that GFDL makes it hard to reuse stuff is considered a *feature* by many, e.g. photographers who license work as GFDL but also sell it privately. That is: the thing that makes GFDL a pain in the backside for a wiki is precisely why they like it, and they want it to stay a pain in the backside for that reason.
Worst possible reason to like a license, ever. :-)
Let's make a strong copyleft license that appeals to photographers.
In my opinion, that is only possible if the copyleft provisions unambiguously transfer to text written to accompany the image. Anything less, is little better than CC-BY. Most people that use photographs do so for the purposes of illustration rather than for the purposes of making derivative images. Hence copyleft provisions that apply only derivative images, and not to the text being illustrated, are intrinsically weak and of little impact.
-Robert A. Rohde
Is not the liberal use of Wikicommons to host images (which can be embedded in dozen of text pages afterwards) a bit inconsistant with this concern anyway ?
Ant