[Commons-l] All about Wikimania, future projects, licenses, etc etc

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 08:42 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The 'good reason' I see is that, according to a somewhat recent post
> by Lessig that I can't currently find,

Probably
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2007-April/001703.html
or another in that month's threads.

> the creative commons thinks
> -SA ought to be a minimal/weak copyleft. I.e. it's okay to use an
> unmodified SA work as in integral part of a non-free work.

No, if the work B qualifies as a derivative work (US)/adaption -- see
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode /
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode -- of work A
licensed under BY-SA, then work B has to be licensed under BY-SA.

The entire question is whether an article containing a photo is a
derivative work/adaption of the photo.  This was argued much,
inconclusively as far as I can tell (early on it looked like "no" to me,
but re-reading I'm not sure at all), in the thread above and also on
cc-licenses, see threads in
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/thread.html
and
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-March/thread.html

But BY-SA is not generally intended to be weak copyleft.  It goes out of
its way to say that merely syncing audio and video creates a derivative,
with the SA requirement, for example.


Of course if an article that includes image is considered an adaption of
the image, this only serves to highlight the need for some form of
FDL/BY-SA compatibility. :)


Mike