On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license. It's much more permissive than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos. By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.
Oh come on. We all know this is a special situation. I am so *bored* with people saying, "But the Wikimedia logos are not licensed freely!" and implying that this is somehow has any implications for policy. They are the single and sole category of exception for a very straightforward and practical legal reason.
FF
My whole point is that there are exceptions. I do disagree with you though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license, though.
I don't really know how you got the last sentence out of what I said, but nevertheless I suppose I will say that of course other corporations have practical reasons for not licensing things freely.
FF