[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 ]

On 8/14/06, Sherool <jamydlan at online.no> 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.

These are unfree licenses. Like any other 'non commercial' license
they create a huge area of grey... For example, if we sell a Wikipedia
DVD to help fun the project is that commercial exploitation?

This is no new revelation. Photographs of copyrighted art must be
released under a free license by all copyright holders. Photographs
which incidentally include copyrighted works do not concern us.

• 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 ]