On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
- With regard to CC-BY:
It's not a question of one license's being more restrictive than the other, exactly. It's that the Share Alike (SA) requirement, which makes the content truly copyleft, can't be added or subtracted in any straightforward way that I can see. (Note that for purposes of simplicity I am lumping together GFDL -- Wikipedia's current licensing standard -- and CC-BY-SA. Their requirements are substantively mostly the same although formally different.)
How could you add SA, for example, without being the original licensor, for importing to Wikipedia?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
- With regard to CC-BY:
It's not a question of one license's being more restrictive than the other, exactly. It's that the Share Alike (SA) requirement, which makes the content truly copyleft, can't be added or subtracted in any straightforward way that I can see. (Note that for purposes of simplicity I am lumping together GFDL -- Wikipedia's current licensing standard -- and CC-BY-SA. Their requirements are substantively mostly the same although formally different.)
How could you add SA, for example, without being the original licensor, for importing to Wikipedia?
The SA license would apply to the derivative work. The non-SA license would apply to the original work. You aren't "adding SA", you're creating a new work, and licensing that new work under SA.
I really don't understand the question. If it can't be legally done, what law are you breaking? Whose copyright is being violated?