[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Rob Myers]

On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar<seav80 at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> If I license a Wikipedia
>> article under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that the pictures in that article
>> have to be CC-BY-SA.
>
> Sorry for the triple post.
>
> Go to a Wikipedia article.  Look at the notice on the bottom.  It says
> "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
> License"  It does not say "this article is available under the
> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License".

There are two different opinions from two different court circuits in 
the US that bear on whether the images in an article constitute a 
derivative or collective work and therefore whether they have to be 
under the same copyleft licence or not. [citation needed]

Wikipedia's actions indicate that they accept the opinion that images 
and text can be licenced differently.

The FSF accept the conflicting opinion:

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope

It's possible to honestly hold and justify either position both legally 
and philosophically (in the US at least). :-)

- Rob.