On 12/2/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know of anyone who doesn't want their photographs being used in freely licensed work. The contention on this point is that the creative commons cc-by-sa, per the position pushed by the creative commons
Gregory, please drop this position, it's pointless and unconstructive. Here is what CC-BY-SA 3.0 says:
"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
Here's what the GFDL says:
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
- - - -
The clauses are highly similar in nature. And they are ambiguous; it is not clear whether a photograph in an article is "separate and independent" from the article text. Again, a license that establishes clarity on this is needed; it doesn't help us to argue that the GFDL _is_ clear on this (it isn't, and our practice contradicts your interpretation), and it doesn't help us to attack Creative Commons because their interpretation of similar language is different from the FSF's.