Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:25:47 -0500 From: Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@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@Wikimedia.org Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces@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.