[Foundation-l] What's wrong with CC-BY-SA?

Andrew Whitworth wknight8111 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 1 21:34:29 UTC 2007

> I don't agree that cc-by-sa is actually "similar enough", certainly
> not when you include the statements by Creative Commons on the meaning
> of share alike for visual illustrations.

I feel that the text of the license is far more important then any one
particular interpretation of that license. Even interpretations by CC
themselves. There are a few aspects that are, from an ideological
point of view the most important here:

1) Work is free to use by other people
2) Derivatives can be made, and those derivatives must be available
under a free license
3) Authors and contributors receive proper attribution for their work.

Also, the WMF has said that other things are important too:

4) Commercial use must be allowed

If CC-BY-SA covers these important points, that should be what matters
most. On these points, I would say that the two licenses are
definitely compatible. Of course, there are many other details that
are not the same between them.

--Andrew Whitworth

More information about the foundation-l mailing list