[Commons-l] CC by 3.0 not allowed on Commons?

[David Gerard]

On 14/07/07, Fruggo <fruggo at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do realise the notion of rejecting Dutch pictures seems absurd but might
> be too realistic (so, no, I didn't mean it as a reductio ad absurdum, well,
> at least for 90% I didn't). And the most scary thing is that it doesn't just
> apply to pictures: if we consider 3.0 to be unfree, that means that Dutch
> copyright law is unfree and incompatible with free licenses, what doesn't
> just mean that Dutch pictures are unfree but also Dutch texts, which means
> that the Dutch Wikipedia cannot exist :S
> (please tell me I'm on the wrong track here)


The answer is that if anyone tried to push it there would hopefully be
pressure to change the relevant bits of the laws.

The problem with some variants of the CC licenses is that the wording
of them appears to make moral rights apply in countries that don't
have such laws. Thus, they're a blatant usage restriction, and the
wording in question seems unduly onerous as well.

But if this is not in fact the case I'm sure Joichi will eventually
come back to this thread and clarify how the licenses don't mean what
they appear to mean.

I'm sure they suit CC's purposes - but CC, lovely as they are, are not
Wikimedia and their purposes are not our purposes.


- d.