On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Michael Snowwikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think I'd be so quick to blame Creative Commons for this, regardless of the advice they've given. It seems like most people reusing copyleft materials in good faith do so without fully understanding the concept, advice or no advice. I've seen plenty of GFDL material combined with other works in this way as well, even when as you say, the whole clearly builds upon the original rather than being a collection of works that can stand independently. It's a bad practice and a major educational challenge for free licenses, but I don't find it that closely related to the issue of choosing a free license in the first place.
To be full clear: I was not attempting to and would not blame Creative Commons because other people make errors regarding licensing. As you point out— confusion in this area is a universal truth.
The critical distinction is that when someone makes an error regarding the application of the GFDL I can write them a polite explanation, and even point them to the FSF blog entry commenting specifically on this issue. I have a 100% satisfaction rate with this approach.
With CC-By-SA there exist a distinct risk that any attempt to educate will be simply be countered by a reference to the incorrect claim that CC-By-SA's copyleft doesn't extend past the edges of an image, leading to a distinctly more adversarial negotiation.
Of course— many people will claim many things, and these things are not legally binding— but I think you have to agree that the words of a party with near unilateral power to change the licensing terms does have a special authority.
This is a primary factor why the majority of my illustrations remain FDL-1.2 only and also why I discontinued contributing copyrightable works to Wikimedia while the licensing question was open. It is not the only factor, but it's one that can be fixed.
Cheers,