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

Mon May 1 19:43:28 UTC 2006

On 5/1/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> It is this distinction between two classes of content which is
> essential. You, on the other hand, want to put ND content on equal
> footing with other materials. This erodes the distinction, reduces the
> incentive to contribute free content, and contradicts the definition
> and mission of Wikisource.

I think this point of Erik's is the most important.

The reason that ND content should not be broadly accepted on any
Wikimedia project is that the only cases where we are able to obtain
an ND grant are cases where we also have a high probaiblity of getting
a free grant.

Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore free content than
content you can use but not distribute.  Both are without cost, both
deny you what would be considered natural rights without copyright,
and both go far beyond the limited restrictions required to keep
content free and far beyond what is needed to avoid people being
confused by content degraded by later editors.

When we accept kinda-free works it is at the cost of actually free works.

There are many sites out there which are happy to distribute
free-of-cost content, Wikimedia doesn't need to yet another.

If someone can really make the case that there are works which could
never be free but can instead be ND, then make it... And expect the
counter argument "But what if I went to the copyright holder and
overed him $100,000 USD to free his work"?  Because thats a perfectly
valid counter argument.