On Dec 2, 2007 8:57 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
If a visual artist doesn't want copyleft for images they should just use CC-BY (or better, 'PD').
The purpose of copyleft is to help expand the pool of free content with a tit-for-tat mechanism. 'Weak copyleft' simply isn't interesting in terms of its ability to achieve this goal.
Is "weak copyleft" not comparable to the LGPL? LGPL appears to have a place; why not "weak copyleft"?
I think the argument is specific to images, which tend not to have as significant of copyrightable changes made to them as software libraries. Sure, maybe a newspaper cleans up an image, lowers the resolution, and converts it to black and white before including the image in the newspaper, but this is not a significant creative change, so the benefit of having those changes released under a free license is negligible.
For software libraries, weak copyleft serves a purpose. For text, weak copyleft serves a purpose. For images, much less so.