Re: Share-alike != Copyleft ?

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Terry Hancock <hancockanansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> 
>>It would be ruinous to the movement if, for example,
it became
>>impossible to use (i.e. reference) GFDL, By-SA, FAL,
By, Expat, and/or
>>GPL images in a single HTML document.  In fact, in
my own experience, it
>>has been generally bad enough even that I can't
combine GFDL images with
>> CC-By-SA images within Gimp for use with an
article.  We don't need a
>>stronger copyleft than that.
> 
> This can be dealt with by simply prescribing that works
used in a
> semantic interdependency must be all under a
"compatible license",
> using a similar whitelist that is now being developed
for CC-BY-SA
> 3.0. The works remain separately licensed, but copyleft
requires that
> they all are _freely_ licensed.

Which is conceptually similar to policy documents like the
Debian Free
Software Guidelines which determine whether works are
"free enough" to
be included in the Debian distribution.

I guess the point is that, even if there is some possibility
of copyleft
binding on "semantically linked" works that it
should not be as strong
as the copyleft on truly derived works.

In fact, if such "semantic linking" were to be
regarded as an
intermediate copyleft state, then it would be both more
consistent and
more useful to include synching audio with video in that
category. ISTM
that a person who puts music under a By-SA license would not
be
concerned if the music is used with a movie released under a
different
(but still "free") license.

Don't know if the copyright laws would allow that, though.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses