On Tuesday 08 April 2008 23:16:34 geni wrote:
On 08/04/2008, Nikola Smolenski
<smolensk(a)eunet.yu> wrote:
Yes, really. Perhaps I should clarify: fair use
does not require that I
release my work under the same conditions as the work I am fairly using;
Actually it does. It requires that you release it under US law.
I don't think so. And anyway, it doesn't matter: the moment I create it, my
work is released under nearly all copyright laws.
> >
Second, I don't want to release my work under CC-BY because I
> > do want enhancements to my work to be freely reusable.
>
> A newspaper article includeing your work may well be an
> enhancement.
Actually, it would rather be the other way around (unless the
article is about my work).
Define "about your work".
I believe it is obvious to everyone.
Define it or withdraw it.
Your replies are getting more senseless as time passes. I don't need to define
it, and I won't withdraw it. I don't see why is it relevant or important
anyway.
> Okey so
you think newspaper articles would be overkill. So what
> if all someone does is add a caption? What if your work is used
> as part of a Collage? What if it is used as part of a flow chart?
> Where do you draw the line?
I do not draw the line.
Then you cannot object to where other draw it.
Yes I can. I just did.
Yes but your objections have no value.
Yes they do. Especially as you are drawing the line completely outside of the
grey area.
I am aware that
there are use cases that are
inbetween. Yet most of the cases fall in two clearly separate
categories: one for which I do want the enhancement to my work to be
freely reusable, and one for which I am content with my work
illustrating an unrelated work.
Meaningless since you will not define which is which.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
Okey I acknowledge there are grey areas. I deal with grey areas all
the time. However I gave you a list of partical real world examples.
If you are unable to sort them then your position is useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
In any case the requirement to release a work under a
free license is
pretty minor compared to the requirement to include a full copy of the
license and an interesting set of disclaimers.
No, in most cases it is a much more restrictive requirement.
You cannot at this time realistically include a GFDL image in the new
scientist. You can include a copyleft article in the new scientist.
These two examples have nothing in common. Requirement to print the license
with the work is easily fulfilled in a number of cases, if not in the New
Scientist. Requirement to change the license of the work is something most
people will not accept.