3

This question is related to Copyleft Multi-Licenced Copyright Notice.

I upload pictures on commons.wikimedia.org and I want to facilitate the reuse but I want derivatives stay "libre". Therefore I provide the wikicode {{self|cc-by-sa-all|cc-sa|GFDL|FAL}} to multi-license them under some copyleft licenses:

Questions about preventing license compatibility issues:

  1. Is it a good practice to license work under all versions of multiple-licenses?
  2. Should I provide more copyleft licenses? Or should I remove unnecessary ones?

I also mention these licenses within the JPEG comment. I think the text should stay short within the JPEG comment. This is my last version:

Copyright (c) 2016 my-name (ɔ) Copyleft
This work (photo) is multi-licensed under all versions of:
CC-BY-SA, CC-SA, GNU-Free-Documentation-License and Free-Art-License.
Therefore recipients can choose the version and the license
under which they want to use/modify/distribute this work.

Note: The symbol 'ɔ' is from Unicode U+0254 LATIN SMALL LETTER OPEN O that may be more widely available than Unicode U+2184 LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED C.

Last question:
Does this above notice meet the legal recommendations/requirements?
(Should it be written in another way? Should it be more verbose/shorten? ...)


EDIT   Applying advices from Zizouz212's answer:

Copyright (c) 2016 my-name
This work (photo) is licensed under all versions of CC-BY-SA.
See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/
You may select the version of your choice.

5

You've got a couple issues.

First off, is the way you assert your copyright. Particularly this: (emphasis mine)

Copyright (c) 2016 my-name (ɔ) Copyleft

The issue is that the term "copyleft" is not a legally defined term. Even this Wikipedia article claims that the addition of this text has no legal significance whatsoever.

Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish by offering your work over multiple licenses. Ideally, you should keep things under a sole license. The biggest reason for offering a work over multiple licenses is so that others can distribute their own modifications under other various licenses, and in the case that licenses are incompatible with each other, to provide optimum usage across the broad spectrum of licenses.

Also, as a quick note, there is no "CC SA" license. ShareAlike is just a concept, that is embedded into the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY), and isn't a license in itself.

What would I recommend?

Unless the offering over multiple licenses provides advantages for yourself and for others that may make use of your work, you should really keep things simple, concise and to the point. Offer the work over a sole license, and the best bet would likely be the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license.

-1

You want anybody getting the work to get a clear notice on the license. Hidden in a comment, that next to nobody will see, doesn't really fullfill that rôle.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.