On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
One open issue is the way both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA deal with embedded media files like images, sounds, and videos.
[snip]
The actual clauses are very similar, however, and I believe what is really needed is a license that gives authors the choice of "strong copyleft" for embedded media: the work into which the media are embedded (whether either work is text, sound, film, a rich media mix, or whatever) should be licensed under a copyleft license.
If a visual artist doesn't want copyleft for images they should just use CC-BY (or better, 'PD').
The purpose of copyleft is to help expand the pool of free content with a tit-for-tat mechanism. 'Weak copyleft' simply isn't interesting in terms of its ability to achieve this goal.
When it comes to photographs and other still, and especially raster, illustrations the predominate forms of reuse are verbatim. When there are modifications within the frame of time image they are generally so trivial that they can be easily reproduced by anyone who is interested.
The question of "does anyone here want a weak copyleft license" is just the far more interesting one...
I do not believe there is any point to having a copyleft license for media which isn't strong. Does anyone here disagree?
Certainties the world does not yet YET ANOTHER free content license if it can be avoided. The already existing myriad of CC licensing knobs already create confusion enough as is. :(