On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:44:49AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote things.
My only question is: are you a lawyer?
I am a retired lawyer. I am not holding out that I did legal research and have formed an opinion you can rely on (and then sue me if I'm wrong). Anyone who uses material that is under the Creative Commons license needs to take responsibility for what they are doing.
If you are not, then it's just a guess.
Anyone's thoughtful look at this language is useful to us. Anyone who can read well has the basic talent needed. An opinion from an attorney could fairly be described as an informed considered guess.
If CC say "you can change our license of the derivated work to anything else you like" then it's solved, change it to GFDL.
Don't think it says that in so many words.
If not, I'm pretty sure *GPL/GFDL denies conflicting sublicensing.
So you think the problem may lie with GFDL rather than with Creative Commons? What language supports that view?
And IANAL. Go, check CC folks about it. Don't debate my knowledge since I have none. :-)
A good idea. Trying out one or two articles and then seeing their reaction might also be useful.
And summarize the results here. If there's any.
Heh, our discussion is not likely to result in a useful summary unless there is a pretty clear cut reaction from Creative Commons. But remember it is the copyright holder, the author, that has standing to sue for infringement, and they need only to make some reasonable construction of the license which would give legal grounds and and you can be in court. (but realistically they are more likely to demand removal of the material)
Part of what we are doing here is building a record of carefully considering whether or not material under the Creative Commons copyright can somehow be used on Wikipedia or other sites under the GFDL. This can help if trouble does result. Our attitude toward the matter is relevant, did we just bull ahead or try to carefully figure out what we can legally and ethically do.
g
Fred