[cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Apr 10 08:59:42 EDT 2012
On Saturday 07 April 2012 13:12:14 Rob Myers wrote:
> On the one hand this makes clear that reblogging or critiquing ARR work
> in a CC context isn't an attempt to CC license it. Which is good.
> On the other, it does make it clear that BY-SA is a *very* weak
> copyleft, going further than the FDL and more akin to the Open Gaming
> License in its ability to interleave non-free material. Which may be bad.
> If BY-SA is very weak copyleft and may accompany ARR work, what does
> this mean for "stronger copyleft", as per Drew, Wikipedia and the FSF?
Well, I know for me, if we don't make a reasonable stab at making the copyleft
aspects of BY-SA stronger this round, I am thinking seriously of adopting
BY-NC-SA for my photos and such with an additional permission to use the work
for commercial purposes so long as the resulting work also grants the same
commercial waiver. I would hate to do this but... We shall see.
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses