2011/2/19 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: > On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo <teofilow...@gmail.com> wrote: (...) >> They are not even... free per the definition of Free works at >> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 because they don't contain >> any open source requirement ("Availability of source data"). This is >> different from the GFDL which, more fortunately contains the >> "transparent copies" requirement. You don't find any "transparent >> copies" requirement in Creative Commons licenses. > > > I think you could be the only person on the face of the planet to try > to argue that CC by-sa isn't a free content licence.
I am not satisfied with the GFDL either. Because the GFDL version 1.3 has a statement that JPG and PNG are always transparent copies, which I disagree with, I think the GFDL 1.3 is not opensource enough. I think that the GNU GPL (not GFDL) should be the preferred license for SVG pictures. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
