[Wikipedia-l] Re: What would Richard Stallman say?

Fri Feb 20 04:04:17 UTC 2004

Not everyone on Wikipedia knows who Richard Stallman is, or cares what 
he would say. The moral argument has appeal, but alone it only works if 
Jimbo decides the issue by fiat. I presume he asks the question, though, 
because he wants some semblance of consensus before making his executive 
decision.

I hesitate to rely on moral arguments in a NPOV world. How about a 
policy argument, the question being, what is best for Wikipedia? Can we 
really use non-GFDL images online, and should we? Jimbo says we can, 
based on section 7 of the GFDL, but that we shouldn't, because it 
doesn't follow the spirit of the GFDL. Others say we should, because it 
allows us to create a better encyclopedia. I say we shouldn't, because 
it's bad for the project, and might end up violating the GFDL as well.

I know that we carefully say that "All text is available under the terms 
of the GNU Free Documentation License", without saying anything about 
the images. But we need to look at a bigger picture than just a 
computer-based project. Section 7 applies "if the copyright resulting 
from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the 
compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit." Fine and 
dandy on a computer, where you can claim that the text and the images 
are separate files.

But the GFDL applies "in any medium". The Wikimedia Foundation has 
ambitions to release Wikipedia in print form. The end of this year has 
been suggested as a goal. Do we still claim then that an image is a 
separate document from an article? And anyway, we can't limit the rights 
of our users to copy Wikipedia articles into print form. But if I use my 
printer to print out any article with an image in it, the image prints 
out with the text. Voila, I may have infringed someone's copyright! And 
by presenting images this way, instead of merely linking to separate 
image pages, Wikipedia is limiting my right to copy GFDL text. 
Therefore, Wikipedia arguably is not complying with section 7 of the GFDL.

I find it highly disingenuous to rely on an argument that images are 
separate from the articles they appear in. Jimbo thinks we're okay 
license-wise, but when you get this far, both of us are relying on 
technicalities. The law, and legal interpretation, sometimes abandons 
such positions, even when they are technically correct. I don't think we 
can count on a legally untested license to protect us forever if we 
continue to use non-GFDL images. Somebody downstream will use images 
without permission, claim the use is licensed, and when they get sued, 
Wikipedia will get sued too for having licensed the unauthorized use.

On the other hand, if we stick to images that qualify for GFDL, we don't 
need boxes for people to check every time they upload an image. We don't 
have to ask users to engage in amateur legal analysis, an unreliable way 
to classify our images by copyright status, just in case we might have 
to weed out certain classifications later. We can just tell people that 
anything you upload has to be free. Unless it's totally free (i.e. in 
the public domain), it has to be under a free-content license. Simpler, 
and much better in the long run.

--Michael Snow