Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> 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

Some of my flickr photos, which are by-sa, have been used in wikipedia
without any problem:

Original photo:
http://flickr.com/photos/hiperactivo/59294852/
Wikimedia photo:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Toshio_Iwai.jpg
Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshio_Iwai

As the license stands, they can also be used by newspapers and media
organisations, as long as they abide by the terms of the license. This means
they can print my photos on their newspaper without copylefting the whole
newspaper, but stating my authorship and letting anyone else also copy the
picture under the license.

As I understand it,  printing the photo on a paper is "mere aggregation",
however strong the semantic relationship may be, and I like the license just
the way it is.

> 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.

Another solution would be to change the law, or the doctrine, so music in a
movie *doesn't* trigger share-alike, and is considered "mere aggregation".
We need less strictures, not more.

Regards,

-- javier