[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

Sun May 30 23:50:18 UTC 2004

--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> The FSF doesn't even use the term "content" in the first place
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content>),
> but they do use the phrase "free documentation".
> They don't define that phrase specifically, but say "The criterion
> for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free software [code]."
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html>),
> and for code they say "The simplest way to make a program free
> is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted."
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html>).
> So the public domain is free, even according to the FSF.
>
> What mav ''intends'' to say, I believe, is that Wikinews should be COPYLEFT.

Yes copyleft is what I was talking about. And for me it is a central part of
what free content is. That's one of the reasons why I want to help create a GNU
Free Content License. The FDL doesn't mention *content* as you rightly state -
that is something that needs to be fixed. 

> There are certainly arguments to be made for that position.
> But public domain and CC-by documents ARE FREE documents.
> As such, even the FSF would be willing to use them in GNU documentation.
> PD and CC-by just are not copyleft.  (CC-by-sa is copyleft,
> while CC-by-nd, CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa and CC-by-nc-nd
> are not even free, at least not by the FSF's standards.)

If a license does not allow for positive feedback between the source and the
derivative work, then I will not support using that license. 

> What is the difference between free and copyleft?
> Fundamentally, a document is free if ''it'' may be used freely:
> freely read, freely copied, freely modified, and freely distributed
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
> or <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>).
> A document is copyleft if ''its derivatives'' may be used freely.

When I say 'free' I mean free as in cost and free as in freedom. 

>... 
> We can have this argument, but let's be clear about what we're arguing over.
> AFAIK, ''nobody'' is advocating that Wikimedia publish non-free articles.
> (There is the issue of incorporating fair use items ''within'' articles,
> such as quotations and images, but that is a different discussion.)
> The question is whether their freedom must be protected by copyleft.

I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft). 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 