[Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

[Sean Barrett]

> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:25:47 -0500
> From: Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out014.verizon.net from
> 	[4.63.108.33] at Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:25:42 -0600
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on 
> 	orwen.epoptic.com
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_RFCI,
> 	RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.61
> 
> Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works.  Wikipedia doesn't 
> need to alter most images.  I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair 
> use.  If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?

The GFDL states that third-generation copiers can alter the work,
so long as they maintain its history.  If you say that about work
you only have cc-nd or fair use rights to, you're in violation.