Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
- "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
- "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
653 authors in this case, so unlikely.
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <email@example.com> wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.