[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

Mon May 31 09:00:56 UTC 2004

--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> >It is just the foundation upon which the free software movement is based.
> 
> This is really not true!

Yes it is. *EVERYTHING* licensed under the GNU GPL can be used free of charge -
whether or not you have access to it is a separate matter. You can charge money
for the service of providing the software (even getting a profit from that) and
also charge for the service, but you are not buying a license to use the
software (which is the proprietary model). 

> The Free Sotware Foundation takes a specific principled stance
> that one CAN charge money for free software code and free documentation
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>).

That is talking about DISTRIBUTION! Just because the software *itself* is free
as in cost and freedom, does not mean that it has to be distributed free of
charge. Same for free/copyleft content. 

> >It is also the meaning we have been operating on since day one.
> 
> I wasn't here on day one, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't true either.
> For as long I've been here (now 2 years), there's always been talk in the air
> about making distributions on compact discs or cheap newsprint
> and selling them at prices that are quite low -- but still large enough
> to recoup the investment in the materials and the printing.
> I am confident that Jimbo -- a true believer in capitalism --
> is looking forward to the day when distributing Wikimedia content
> starts making some far-sighted printing companies a good profit.

Again you are missing the entire point and confusing access with what something
actually is. Our text has been free in both senses of the word from day one and
will remain libre until its copyright has expired (then it will only be
gratis). Distribution is a different matter - we could charge a high fee for
people to even view it on the Internet, but somebody else could charge nothing
(as we do now and for as long as I can help it). THAT makes the content free -
anybody can do whatever they want to do with it so long as they preserve those
rights for others and follow a few simple rules. 

So there would be nothing wrong for charging a fee for a CD or book that
contains our content. We are *free* even to make a profit on that. What we are
not free to do is claim exclusive distribution rights on that content.

See what I mean when I say that the content *itself* is free? It, itself, is
free from most types of control. In a sense it has been liberated has and
almost has a life of its own. Even selling your copyright to a copyleft text
will not change that fact (such a sale would be, for practical reasons, useless
due to the fact that the content has been liberated). 

> >If we are serious about leading a revolution in how content is distributed
> and
> >controlled, then we must continue using the full sense of the word 'free'
> >(gratis and libre). Negative feedback loops will not get us there.
> 
> I don't see how the «gratis» bit prevents irreversible forks.
> On the other hand, you need a «copyleft» bit to prevent these,
> and that is simply not included in the accepted meaning of the term "free".

The English language word 'free' isn't the best one for this. I will use gratis
and libre from now on. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

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