[Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

Sat Mar 13 17:45:50 UTC 2004

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would think that we would be able to use work originally licensed under
the cc license on wikipedia even if we relicense it under the GFDL. There
is nothing in the cc license that says we can't. I think some wikipedians
even use photos that are licensed under the cc.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:38:20 -0800 Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> "GB" == Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp> writes:
>
>    GB> This statement is right?  License compatible with GFDL:
>
>That depends on what you mean by "compatible". If you mean, "you
>can
>include works under license X with works under the GFDL", practically
>any value of X will work.
>
>If you mean, "You can re-license a work made under the license X
>under
>the GFDL", then X can only be "public domain", "GFDL", or something
>BSD-like (such as CC-BY).
>
>If you mean "You can re-license a work made under the GFDL under
>license X", then it's just the GFDL.
>
>If you mean, "You can dual-license a work under both license X and
>the
>GFDL," then it can be practically any license. HOWEVER, dual-licensing
>with copyleft licenses only lasts for one generation: people who
>make
>derivative works have to decide which license to choose, and license
>under only that. No current copyleft license allows you to re-license
>under a license with a similar spirit but different details.
>
>If it's not clear already, dual licensing is a lot of trouble. The
>idea is nice, but it makes for a lot of head-scratching.
>
>    GB> By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation
>is
>    GB> allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness
>of a
>    GB> picture?
>
>There's a good Web site here with info on fair use:
>
>        http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>
>Fair use (or fair dealing) is not a license. It is an exception
>to US
>and Commonwealth country copyright law that says that you can make
>unauthorized copies or excerpts of work under certain circumstances.
>
>Fair use is a _defense_ if you are sued for copyright violation.
>The
>courts decide if your unauthorized copying is excusable under the
>principle of fair use. In the US, it depends who you are, why you're
>using the copyrighted work, how much you're using, and what the
>effect
>is on the copyright holder and the market. It is a complicated and
>subjective decision. In other countries, the rules are different.
>
>~ESP
>
>--
>Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
>Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
>The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3

wkYEARECAAYFAkBTAvIACgkQImu8Pbyf50H98QCgj4o5fsmvNRkLMlcHNDxO3WrFb/YA
oIfLBCAPDh9xSZCBK+oDlcMkP4js
=1I9o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: 
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427