On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar<[email protected]> wrote:
If I license a Wikipedia
article under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that the pictures in that article
have to be CC-BY-SA.
Sorry for the triple post.
Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says
"Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License" It does not say "this article is available under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License".
There are two different opinions from two different court circuits in
the US that bear on whether the images in an article constitute a
derivative or collective work and therefore whether they have to be
under the same copyleft licence or not. [citation needed]
Wikipedia's actions indicate that they accept the opinion that images
and text can be licenced differently.
The FSF accept the conflicting opinion:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope
It's possible to honestly hold and justify either position both legally
and philosophically (in the US at least). :-)
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
