Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia-Sadi0fl/VCj2fBVCVOL8/[email protected]> wrote:
> Mav's position, as he is stating it, is more extreme (and simply wrong IMO),
> since he is claiming (I believe) that a noncopyleft licence like CC-sa
> is not free to begin with.  Still, mav does have a point, as I said here:

If CC-sa = Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license, then I think you
are confused (or at least made a typo). The CC by-sa is in fact more
libre/copyleft than the GNU FDL since it does not have provisions for invariant
sections. Thus its copyleft status is more permanent. The CC-by license is
merely gratis with the only real requirement being attribution. 

> >>There are ''reasons'' for each of the restrictions,
> >>including reasons that the restrictions may increase freedom overall.
> [I've corrected a typographical error in the original here.]
> 
> So mav can reasonably argue (along with the FSF) that a copyleft licence
> increases freedom overall, because it enforces freedom for derivative works.
> But it does not increase the freedom of the ''original'' document --
> as even the FSF would agree -- and could only decrease ''that'' freedom.
> (And that was your point, Andre, which I agree with.)

Decrease that freedom? How when anything from a derivative work can be
reincorporated back into the original? In what way does that decrease the
freedom of the original document? 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) 


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/