NC and ND are
clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL.
CC-BY-SA on the other
hand is incompatible on a technical level only.
That is, the rules
specify that one cannot cross-license, but the
spirit of both licenses
is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step
from requiring
everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a
much larger step, and
we could not reasonably consider an article as a
whole to be GFDL if
there are such images in it.
Well, true (although GFDL has that annoying
requirement to
print/include the license alongside the product,
which is why I
despise it for images), but I guess that raises the
more central
question of: what is the big deal about WP being
GFDL? My
understanding is that GFDL was chosen as the time
partly beause it was
the most well-known copyleft license suitable for
text. If we had that
time again, would we still choose GFDL? How about
CC-BY-SA? How about
CC-BY-NC? What is the killer argument that Wikipedia
should be allowed
to be reused in a commercial setting? (I obviously
don't consider the
DVD argument to be a killer argument.)
Brianna
The reason, as far as I see it, is that commerciality
should not be an issue: if someone need to charge for
material, than he should not be prevented by license
restrictions. If anyone wants to print a book of
Wikipedia material, they can't if the material is NC.
Some parts of the world don't have access to Internet,
so printing is the only possibility, and printing
costs money.
/ Fred