On Sunday 01 June 2003 15:05, Erik Moeller wrote:
Erik,
Let's be clear on one point: On en:, we are
*already* allowing fair use of
images.
o.k., something I do not doubt, nevertheless the question remains if this is
compatible with the GFDL.
You would like to see this status *changed*. The legal
case for
doing so is no stronger than the case for prohibiting fair use of quotes
or sounds (of which there are plenty).
I agree that we have the same problems with sound and quotes and I agree that
quotes are even more a problem than images.
Erik, up to now I read three things from your postings:
1. "fair use" quotes are more a problem than images
2. in this posting you tried to defend the usage of "fair use" images by
saying that they are not directly part of the article but are referenced
3. you are not happy with the consequences
Please, tell me if you think that "fair use" content (images, quotes whatever)
is compatible (if directly used within the article) with the GFDL or not
(regardless of any consequences).
<snip>
What is now, in the context of Wikipedia, the work
that is licensed under
the FDL? It is not what the server generates, it is not what the web
browser renders, for neither of these entities have the legal rights to
claim a copyright. It is the document entered by the user in the Wikipedia
article submission form, in its original, "transparent" wikitext source
code form.
<snip>
Erik, these are technical details no user will ever understand and I doubt
some lawyer buys this argument. Whatsoever, we then agree that we have to at
least move the "free use" content away from the article source, right?
As a consequence we have to emphasise that _only_ the wikipedia article source
is free, _not_ the whole article. This is something which nobody will expect
if we call us "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
Citing from [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]:
"The goal of Wikipedia is to create an information source in an encyclopedia
format that is freely available. The license we use grants free access to our
content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. That is to
say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as
the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges Wikipedia
as the source. Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can
be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to
ensure that freedom. "
Let me repeat this: "The license we use grants free access to our content
[...] Wikipedia content can be [...] modified". This is a statement about the
"content" in general without mentioning any restrictions.
Erik, do you agree that we should change this statement? Should we say that
only the source of the article is free, but not the "visible" article itself?
Did I understood your position correctly?
best regards,
Marco
--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover