[Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

[Teofilo]

2011/2/19 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
(...)
>> They are not even... free per the definition of Free works at
>> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 because they don't contain
>> any open source requirement ("Availability of source data"). This is
>> different from the GFDL which, more fortunately contains the
>> "transparent copies" requirement. You don't find any "transparent
>> copies" requirement in Creative Commons licenses.
>
>
> I think you could be the only person on the face of the planet to try
> to argue that CC by-sa isn't a free content licence.

I am not satisfied with the GFDL either. Because the GFDL version 1.3
has a statement that JPG and PNG are always transparent copies, which
I disagree with, I think the GFDL 1.3 is not opensource enough.

I think that the GNU GPL (not GFDL) should be the preferred license
for SVG pictures.