[cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images

Erik Moeller erik at wikimedia.org
Tue Feb 20 19:40:05 EST 2007


As I've said, I'd be strongly in favor of changing the SA license to
require the combination of works in a strong semantic relationship to
trigger a secondary SA clause, where each component would have to be
licensed under a license which meets the criteria defined at

http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

but not necessarily the exact same license. This would allow us, at
Wikimedia, to combine pictures under CC-BY-SA with GFDL articles
without hesitation, but at the same time give photographers and
artists reasonable protection when they use the copyleft clause.

If there are no clear legal reasons not to do it, then it should be in
CC-BY-SA. I'll push the process of creating a new license if
necessary, but I don't think it should be. The current implementation
simply doesn't make an awful lot of sense for types of works where
derivatives are very rarely direct derivatives, and more frequently
semantic combinations. I don't see why this should be any more or less
legally problematic than, say, the NC restriction.

Copyleft should _mean_ copyleft, regardless of the type of work that
is being copylefted. The situation where music in a movie triggers
share-alike, and a picture in an article does not, is morally
unacceptable.
-- 
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list