Marco-
> 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.
Good. Do you agree that removing quotes from Wikipedia is not an option?
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).
I think they are compatible if they are separately licensed. They mey also
be compatible if they are combined, but that is not my understanding of
the FDL and of fair use.
Erik, these are technical details no user will ever
understand and I doubt
some lawyer buys this argument.
Actually, I do not consider it very ambiguous at all. The FDL makes no
reference to linked materials, period. Therefore linked materials are
separate works.
Whatsoever, we then agree that we have to at
least move the "free use" content away from the article source, right?
Yes.
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".
What most people expect is that Wikipedia is free as in beer. We surprise
them when we tell them that 90%+ of it are also free as in speech.
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?
We should clarify that we allow limited fair use of materials, and that
the different components of an article (text, images, quotes, sounds) need
to be checked separately if one intends to use Wikipedia materials in a
way not allowed by fair use law or the local equivalent.
Regards,
Erik