[Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force

[wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk]

Sage Ross wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, <wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA
>> license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume
>> that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not
>> if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the
>> copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two
>> parties you simple do not know.
>>
> 
> In many cases it's very obvious.  If an image credit says "Sage
> Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC
> license), it's clear that it's not being used properly.  If the image
> credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on
> Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear.
> 
> Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking
> the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed.  But there are
> a lot of times when you can know.
> 

The last time someone just said 'Creative Commons license' on one of my 
pics they were linking back to the flickr page which has the CC license 
link. Now most dont bother saying CC though they do link back to the 
flickr photopage, the information is available you just have to go look 
for it a bit. Does that count in your world?

A whole mass of reusers are using some blogging or CMS pluggin or theme 
(wordpress, drupal, etc) on their site few of which bother to attribute 
let alone link to relevant licenses. If you feel the need to bitch at 
anyone bitch at those developers.