[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license
brianna.laugher at gmail.com
Sun Dec 2 13:57:38 UTC 2007
On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at 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.
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
More information about the foundation-l