[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 11:58, Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/2/19 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>>> On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a
>>>> e-mail from me.
>
>>> CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever.
>
>> CC 2.0 does not. CC 3.0 does.
>
>
> Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making
> blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's
> understanding of them.
>

In my view, the existence of "Canada French", "Canada English" etc...
versions of CC 2.0 affects usability (or uploader-friendliness), but I
don't see this as a legal problem. If you are talking about the legal
problems I mentioned in my other mail, please have a look at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crystal_Clear_icons . They
are licensed under LGPL (I mentioned GPL in that email, but LGPL is
probably enough). LGPL licensing ensures that the SVG code (which is a
kind of software code) is distributed alongside the icon. If the icon
is converted into PNG or JPG, the distributor is required to provide
the SVG source code alongside the JPG or PNG rendering. While
computers can easily change a SVG into PNG or JPG, the reverse is
impossible. It is important to keep the SVG source code intact, so
that people can easily open it and create modified versions as easily
as the icon creator could create the original version. If the icon is
released into the Public Domain, nothing ensures that people will
carry the SVG code each time they reuse the icon.