"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" <daniel(a)copyleft.no> writes:
We should make it as good as possible within as wide a
legal framework as
possible.
Well, you've cut to the chase here.
When there's tension between these do we go for "good"
or do we go for "as wide a legal framework".
I'm on the side of "Good."
"Fair Use" images
i) Make articles better
ii) Make it harder for future non-educational projects to exploit
the "codebase"
IMHO, (i) is an enormous upside, (ii) is a small downside, especially
considering that these projects
a) don't actually exist yet
(and making sacrifices to solve non-existent problems is dumb)
b) are already fettered by the many other constraints of the GFDL
(i.e. authorship credits, link-backs)
Now, we can be pragmatists, and work toward a really, really good
encyclopedia, or we can be dogmatists, and strive toward some abstractly
pre-defined definition of "freedom."
I've never cared for dogmatists, and I don't intend to become one now.
--
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