[Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation

• Previous message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Next message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sherool wrote:

> While such licences are free-ish I don't think they would fall fully
> within the definition of free content (thouh IANAL). Either way they would
> not be compatable with the GFDL licence, since it does not put any  
> restrictions on who can use a work or for what purpose, and unless I'm
> mistaken GFDL compatability is the acid test for wether or not something
> is allowed on Commons.

Not really, even CC-BY-SA isn't compatible with GFDL.

-- 
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org

• Previous message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Next message: [Commons-l] Editorial use vs commercial exploitation
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]