Yes, if you read my last post to the wiken list, viewable here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/029985.html, I think I made it
clear that I was using the term copyright too loosely. What I meant, was material released
under a non-gnu-compatible license. We should draw a line between gnu-compatable content,
and non-gnu-compatable content on the software side, to better facilitate removal of that
content by future users of our content. Otherwise, we are sacrificing the freeness of our
encyclopedia. If we leave things the way they are, there is no telling how hard it will
actually be to remove this non-free content in the future.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:23:55 -0300, Jeff Warnica <jeffw(a)chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 2004-20-08 at 12:58 -0400, Michael Becker
wrote:
I'm forwarding my message to the wikitech
list because I think this
might be of more interest to you people than wikipedians at large.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Becker <mbecker(a)jumpingjackweb.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:43:09 -0400
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and
GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't
facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no
The opposite of copyrighted is "public domain". Works covered by the
GPL, and the FDL ARE copyrighted. It is copyright law that provides for
the legal backing of the GPL/FDL (and for that matter, _any_ license).
--
Michael Becker