Correct: Derivatives are allowed Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992 -- Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. On 10/04/2012 16:57, David Gerard wrote:

There's also a "no promotion" clause - you can't use the work to promote your organisation. This is above and beyond the normal 'no derogatory use' clause... Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992 -- Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. On 10/04/2012 17:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 17:33, David Gerard wrote: Disagree. The point of the NC and ND licenses isn't so much so they can be used on Wikipedia but really as a stepping stone into CC for nervous types. You might license something under CC BY-NC and watch it be reused a bit: someone pops it into a blog post or into a PowerPoint deck. And, holy crap, the world doesn't end, all is fine and nobody is being asked difficult questions about evil Communist freedom-haters who want to destroy Western civilisation. All is swell. That's a pretty good practical argument when the Wikipedians turn up and start banging on about free licenses. Don't compromise on that: we should be stringent about PD, CC BY and BY SA only (although, incidentally, if we are to have non-free content, I'd rather have a CC BY NC licensed image than an all rights reserved image if possible, so long as it doesn't affect the number of contributed free images we have). But let's not call for licenses to die or be killed: they serve an important role in allowing the cautious to get their toes wet. -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/>

On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 18:00, David Gerard wrote: Oh sure, no argument there. ;-) -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/>

Well, actually we don't know it works for us. Our stuff is in early draft, and re-use of text is already making life pretty difficult already (checking for copyvios, notability, and clones in repressive regimes (Baidu Baike) ). We are also causing breaks in attribution chains every time we delete something that is mirrored, and the case law is still patchy to say the least. On 10/04/2012 17:33, David Gerard wrote: