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

"Daniel Mayer" <maveric149-/[email protected]> schrieb:
> --- 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. 

It's NOT free, you say? So, I may not use it freely? You DO have a strange
definition of 'free'.

> > 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? 

By restricting how it may be used. What other way could there be to decrease
freedom?

Andre Engels