"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" <daniel(a)copyleft.no> writes:
First, you phrase ii) in a way that makes it appear
the only danger would be
that "non-educational" (implying: bad)
No such implication was intended. The point is, educational uses are subject
to different criteria to judge what is and is not fair use.
e.g. one may be allowed to print a picture in a textbook, or a review, that
one would not be allowed to market on a T-Shirt.
projects would "exploit" (very bad)
Wikipedia
Again, thats your inferrence, not my implication.
Non-commercial uses get more leniency from the courts.
In many countries outside the USA, _any_ project, not
just non-educational
projects, would be dissallowed to use (not "exploit") Wikipedia material.
You appear to greatly misunderstand the nature of the World Wide Web.
To supply the world, we need only publish in the US.
We need not concern ourselves with what whether the information may be
published in Spain, Wales or Finland any more than we concern ourselves with
whether it may be published in North Korea.
--
Gareth Owen
"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity"
-- W. B. Yeats forsees the standard of debate on wikipedia-l