Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:13:08AM -0700, Ray Saintonge
wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
What I do suggest is that we use common sense to
determine the few cases
where we think fair use law is applicable, instead of simply ignoring
these few loopholes in the current restrictive copyright code. I would
think that someone opposed to intellectual property would embrace the idea
that we should defend and make use of our rights, instead of bowing to the
pressure from copyright holders.
My inclination would be to use borderline material, with an appropriate
warning that we will happily remove on request from a properly
identified owner.
When whole Wikipedia will be included in Linux distros, distributed on CDs,
and articles from Wikipedia will be used by hundreds of books and magazines
and thousands of web sites, how are you going to do that ?
We'd better play safe here.
How others use the material is their problem, and their risk. We
shouldn't have to baby-sit them. Whatever license or copyrights are
applied to Wikipedia reflects a collective comfort level. The user is
still responsible for his own due-dilligence, no matter how conservative
we are on the matter.
Anything that doesn't allow Debian and other
distros distribute Wikipedia
in their main section is not acceptable. (That means DFSG and OSI
compatibility, and "fair use" is clearly incompatible with these rules,
btw. invariant sections/front and back covers etc. of GFDL are also
incompatible with DFSG, negotiations with FSF are in process now to fix
that problem with GFDL, plain GFDL is DFSG-compatible)
At some point along the way I get lost in the subtle distinctions that
separate this alphabet soup of licenses. I'm sure that the average
contributor doesn't waste much time on it either. Similarly, when we
install a new piece of software, how many of us really read and
understand the legalese bafflegab of licences. We just click on yes,
because if we don't the program won't work. When we contribute to
Wikipedia we agree to the principle that we want our writing to be
generally available to the public to use as it sees fit, and that we are
sharing it with like-minded individuals. We don't worry about the
contortions of armchair lawyers.
The practical principle that it is easier to get forgiveness than to get
permission goes a long way as long as it is applied with a level of
common sense whereby we restrain ourselves from flagrant abuse. The
rule of law is a good thing, but too much law is simply ignored.
Ec