On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Is "weak copyleft" not comparable to the LGPL? LGPL appears to have a place; why not "weak copyleft"?
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?
At the risk of being stoned... yeah. I just don't consider an article that uses a photograph of mine as illustration to be a a derivative of my work. I don't want an article, blog or book author to have to license their whole text under CC-BY-SA just because they use my image. HOWEVER, I do want them to be obliged to make explicit the license of my work, that is offer it to others under the same conditions. My work, not theirs. That is how I think "weak copyleft" differs from CC-BY or PD.
So "weak copyleft", if we are talking about the same thing, suits me well.
regards, Brianna