On Dec 2, 2007 11:07 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 19:59 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 4:52 AM, Javier Candeira javier@candeira.com wrote:
I do, my photos are by-sa but newspaper using them for illustration doesn't have to be (that's my intention when licensing, at least them), as long as the photos themselves are labeled with the proper attribution and licensing.
Greetings. Why not use the cc-by license instead? It has the same attribution behavior as cc-by-sa.
You're missing the part when Javier (or at least someone else in this discussion) also want the reuser to explicitly specify that the illustration is available for their customers / audience to reuse with attribution (and similar specification).
If Javier wrote that I must be thread split, since I have no such message from him. He did, however, respond to my message while I was writing this, I've included my reply below.
I'll assume for a moment that he did... What would the significance of that be? Someone might want, for example a license which was 'NC-SA' for 5 years then turned just 'SA'. Someone else might want a 'No use by the military'. For any possible license variation we can imagine a person who might want those terms. The pre-existing standard system of law allows them to do that. They don't need CC's help.
For CC to be effective it needs to make copyright simpler for both producers and consumers (and everything in between because the world is no longer so black and white). To achieve that there needs to be a reasonable number of straightforward options, no more, no less. Since the options need to be limited then it makes sense that they should cluster around the most individually needed and socially advantageous options.
It seems to me that some people who do not care if non-free works are made out of their works are using CC-By-SA rather than CC-By because they have some concern that their exact work will end up out of the free-content world, and they expect CC-By-SA to prevent that. This seems to me like enough of a corner case that CC-By could be augmented to resolve it (by the license depending on a copy of the unmodified cc-by work being available at no cost), rather than imposing the extra restrictiveness of copyleft (of any type) where it really is not desired.
Javier wrote:
Because I want to allow for modifications: paint on my photos and modify them to make posters or desktop backgroun ds, make an animation or a slideshow of them, improve my panoramas of which I post the "source" (a .xcf gimp file)... and in those cases I would like the copyleft rule apply.
If someone takes your CC-By-SA work, and crops it to desktop aspect.. do you really gain much by the result being CC-By-SA? Couldn't you simply perform the same change with almost as much ease as copying? What if they printed it out and you only received the print version; wouldn't it be easier and better to simply make the same changes rather than scanning their low resolution print?
When you start talking about making slideshows and animations, to me it starts sounding a lot like a case that people do not expect a weak copyleft to cover. In a classic 'weak copyleft', only changes to your images themselves would be encumbered. A slideshow which was merely created with your images may not be covered. If it was, then why wouldn't associated educational text which explained your images be covered? Is there something magic about displaying things one-after-the-other that is different from displaying things side by side? :)
In any case you could always use the more restrictive license and distribute an additional permission to allow the extra uses which you wish to allow. But it's better for the world if you use the most standardized licensing possible.
How big of an impact has this aspect of license behavior had for you?