Commons talk:Viral licenses are not automatic

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A different example, perhaps? Something certainly copyrightable - unlike charts (diagrams) that are often PD-trivial? Retired electrician (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, that's an easy thing to adjust. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt[edit]

I somewhat doubt the example given in the section "Changing license tags". CC-BY-SA and CC-BY are compatible, so if somebody creates a derivative work of a CC-BY-SA work and licenses their changes as CC-BY, according to my understanding, the more restrictive of both licenses applies to the combination - but if somebody takes just the changes (if that's possible), they can use them under CC-BY. The essay is however certainly right about incompatible licenses, e.g. GFDL (non-relicensable) and CC-BY-SA. darkweasel94 13:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Viral_licenses_are_not_automatic&oldid=96793959"