On 03/12/2007, Daniel Kinzler <daniel(a)brightbyte.de> wrote: Yes, but as Greg argued, images are not typically modified in the heavy fashion that text is. The edits that are made, are arguably easily reproduced and so having them or not having them in the ShareAlike silo is not that significant. I think you would recognise this on Commons: the vast majority of images are only ever edited by the uploader. For FPs and QIs the case is different, and those photographers and illustrators have good incentive to use a SA license. But for the majority it's not that important, especially if any derived works have to link to the original and state its license. A person seeing the derived work, if correctly obeying the license, could easily think "bugger that, I'll just go get the original and make the same changes this chap did, and release it under my personal favourite copyleft license". I think perhaps it is too fine a distinction. There are many distinctions CC could make but for the sake of simplicity don't, e.g. educational use, or personal use. So perhaps this scenario makes more sense: * Solidify CC-BY-SA as a "strong copyleft" license * Let or encourage people like you and me to add the additional freedoms as we like when granting the license. (Commons could have a template for it, doesn't mean CC necessarily needs a separate license for it.) e.g. "This image or its derivatives can be combined with text without affecting the text's copyright, as long as the license for the image is clearly and separately stated." (I think it's OK to use a strong copyleft license and grant additional rights, but not OK to use CC-BY and demand additional restrictions [such as derivs must be same license].) cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

Daniel Kinzler wrote: I like that concaption. However, as simple it is to differenciate when it's a text/image issue, what happens when the modified version is also an image, but breader. Eg. the virgin case. Is that a composition of your photo with the text and background (it would have been composed in layers) or simply a derivative work? The LGPL doesn't either define the difference. Daniel Kinzler wrote: Don't call it so. People would start confusing it with Cc-by-sa. Maybe CC-BY-LSA (Less Share-Alike) following LGPL sample?

On 03/12/2007, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com> wrote: I agree, but even as a not-copyleft license it's much stronger, ie more demanding, than I realised. I think I assumed from the title that it literally was just a "byline license" (actually, like {{attribution}}), and so never actually read the legal code until now. Assumptions are so deadly. I deeply mislead myself. ;) cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/