Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:25:47 -0500
From: Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at
out014.verizon.net from
[4.63.108.33] at Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:25:42 -0600
Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on
orwen.epoptic.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_RFCI,
RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.61
Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works. Wikipedia doesn't
need to alter most images. I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair
use. If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
The GFDL states that third-generation copiers can alter the work,
so long as they maintain its history. If you say that about work
you only have cc-nd or fair use rights to, you're in violation.