On Dec 3, 2007 8:38 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
After rereading the CC-BY legal code it does appear you (and others who made this point) are correct, and I was quite mistaken about the strength of the CC-BY license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License."
Indeed it seems CC-BY is already the "weak copyleft" I was thinking CC-BY-SA is... CC-BY is much stronger than I realised. I thought CC-BY just meant "include a byline with my name".
I am probably not the only one who had this impression, because the Wikimedia Commons summary as it stands is deeply misleading. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-3.0
How embarrassing.
It's not deeply misleading, it's just too short. It should probably say "In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s) and add a copy or link to the license".
I don't think it is copyleft, because derivative works should not be under the same license: "If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means "
Bryan