Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Question: GNU, Wikipedia and Creative Commons

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Question: GNU, Wikipedia and Creative Commons
  • Date: 27 Nov 2005 15:43:00 +0900

Daniel Carrera wrote:

>Matthew McDermott wrote:
>> It would seem odd to have just
>> those articles under the GNU on my site alongside a Wiki of CC articles
>> and I wonder if that is even legally viable?
>
>Sadly, the GFDL is just not compatible with any license but itself. Your
>best bet is what you wrote above.
>

True, and I also feel it is a sad thing.

But if those documents Matthew wants to bring in to his wiki
are independent works from other pages of his wiki, I suppose
he can treat the entire wiki as a collective work. The collective
work could include GFDL component and CC component.

GFDL's section 7, 1st para. reads as follows:
"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage
or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal
rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual
works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate,
this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate
which are not themselves derivative works of the Document."

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

And then CC-BY-SA's 4.a. includes the following sentense:

"The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective
Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from
the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License."

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode)

CC license has many variants with different combinations of
license elements and versions. But I suppose the part I quoted
above is in all variants.

So perhaps it is okay to have one page in a wiki to be GFDL'd
and another to be CC'd. Indeed, some of Wikipedia's images
are licensed variously, some under GFDL, others in CC, etc.

But please be warned that I am not a lawyer. All I say here could
well be wrong.

Regards,

Tomos




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page