On Sunday 01 June 2003 22:31, Erik Moeller wrote:
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?
No, if the quotes are not compatible with GFDL we _have to_ remove them from
the article source.
I think they are compatible if they are separately
licensed.
O.k. but then we have to make this very clear that the GFDL applies _not_ to
all the content we provide.
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.
You see it this way we'll see what the lawyers from the FSF say about this.
Whatsoever, we
then agree that we have to at
least move the "free use" content away from the article source, right?
Yes.
Good, finally we agree :-)
This of course includes "free use" quotes.
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.
This is a nice interpretation, but has nothing to do with what people that
come from the free software world expect. _I_ expect a 100% free (in the
sense of freedom) encyclopedia and to be honest I am very disappointed if
this becomes official policy.
Do you agree if I change:
"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."
to:
"The license we use grants free access to our content. That is to say, most of
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 (not all content) therefore will remain free
forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of
which serve to ensure that freedom."
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.
If this is or becomes official policy then Wikipedia is not free (in the sense
of freedom) anymore. Then please also replace "Wikipedia the free
encyclopedia" by something else, because it then becomes a lie :-(
Very disappointed,
Marco