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

Mon May 1 19:17:18 UTC 2006

--- Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Please pay me the compliment of believing what I say,
however it stretches your credulity or however you
would like to interpret the Main Page.  Here is a link
to most recent dissucion which took place on the most
active and prominent page on enWS.  Not single person
spoke out against accepting the ND license.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Non_commercial_texts

<snip> 

> > 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

When you have managed to limit fair use materials, I
will examine the limits and re-evaluate my opiion. 
Currently enWP has pretty much any fair use material
they can get away with.  If the Foundation is willing
to be that flexible there should be room for other
limited licenses especially where the marterial is
most valuable without modifications.  I do not believe
ND licences should be adopted on Wikipedia or other
projects.  Wikisource is in a uniquie situation where
our content is desired in a fixed form without
modifications.  We have only the smallest number of
articles that have even begun to be translated by
editors and there a no active projects of
translations.  We should not exclude works simply
because they cannot be translated, when it is highly
unlikely there would even be such an interest.  I am
unconvinced that anything is gained by excluding ND
licenses from Wikisource.  As I said before if the
Foundation wishes to follow the strictest principles
of "free content" they should forbid fair use as well
as non-derivative.  However as long as these
descisions continue to be arbitrary, I will fight to
see that they are made so that Wikisource can be the
best site possible with a balance of freedom and
availabilty.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 