[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

Mon May 1 18:09:38 UTC 2006

On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> That is not the case whatsoever.  We are commited to
> hosting freely distributable works.

The frontpage of en.wikisource.org states:

"Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free
content source texts built by its contributors."

Even before the free content definition, the [[free content]] article
Wikisource links to has stated:

"Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work,
artwork, or other creative content having no legal restriction
relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share
the content."

Given this, it can be said that en.wikisource itself disagrees with
you that "freely distributable" is sufficient. I believe it is crucial
that Wikimedia projects follow a consistently high standard of freedom
for the works they host. This gives users certainty about the freedoms
they have, and compels those who wish to contribute content to choose
a permissive model rather than the least permissive which is still
acceptable.

Your argument for allowing non-free materials is a short term
argument. It is based on the consideration that there are texts which
are currently not available under free terms. If we follow your
advice, we will host those materials, but give the people who hold
rights over them no incentive to relax those restrictions. If we
remain steadfast in our convictions, we can build upon the works which
are currently accessible to us -- more than enough to grow a community
-- and use our influence to compel more and more people to share our
definition of freedom.

I find it hard to believe that you would even seriously make the
argument that Wikisource should host texts which cannot be translated
into other Wikisources. The ability to create useful derivative works
such as translations is exactly one of the key benefits a project like
Wikisource can provide over traditional web sites such as Project
Gutenberg.

> the material of Wikimedia will not
> be universally free everywhere.

There are local laws which can impede the freedom of content we host.
This typically applies to the question of when content enters the
public domain. I believe that we should follow the laws of the country
where the content originates, except in cases where these laws deviate
heavily from internationally prevalent standards.

Regarding the fr.wikisource.org example, I believe the text should
either be removed from all projects, or none.

> Why else is there an exception for fair use?

Fair use images are treated very differently from any free content.
1) It has always been policy on en.wikipedia.org that an article can
never consist of fair use materials alone. All articles are at most
enriched with fair use content, but their basis must always be free
content. Material copied straight from the web is deleted immediately,
and all the text must be licensed under the GFDL or more permissive
terms.
2) Fair use images can be deleted when orphaned, replaced when a free
alternative is found, removed when the fair use argument is questioned
or a copyright holder complains. They are essentially "allowed on
parole".

We can further develop this distinction if we are clear and consistent
about only allowing two classes of material, free content and limited
fair use to enrich that content.

Erik