[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

Wed May 3 14:00:09 UTC 2006

--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > We recognize that the inclusion of this content
> is a violation of the
> > > other half the goal of the project. As a result
> it is only permitted
> > > to include fair use in English wikipedia where
> doing so compromises
> > > our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
> >
> > Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid
> compromising their
> > ability to be a source of original texts, you do
> not want to allow
> > them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that
> you are of the
> > opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not
> allow fair use in
> > any form whatsoever, is not a quality
> encyclopedia?
> >
> I think there's a big difference here between (most)
> images and (most)
> text.  As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document
> which cannot
> legally be translated is not a free document.  But
> translation doesn't
> apply to most images.  The same applies, although to
> a lesser extent,
> for short quotes, which is the other place fair use
> is generally used.
> 

Here is where I really am not understanding this
policy.  Wikisource does not allow fair use claims,
but if we did allow something under fair use
derivative works would be forbidden.   We would not be
able to allow translations of something under fair use
and fair use *is* about more than images.  So I just
do not see the rational reasoning in this at all.  It
seems to me like fair use is being allowed simply
because people do not want to have to delete "unfree"
material that they have gotten used to having. 
Because it would hamstring Wikipedia.   I understand
that but I do not understand why such reasoning cannot
be applied to other projects.  

Obviously we want to have as many things be as free as
possible, but it is not always possible which this
policy concedes.   When Wikisource contains giant gaps
in the coverage of certain categories it fails to be
useful in those areas at all.  If the overriding goal
of WMF is to focus on solely on "free content" by this
definition, then Wikisource can focus its enerigies in
other areas and change it's scope a bit.  And let us
see Wikipedia also prove how much can be done with
"free content" alone.  But if being successful is
truly half of our goal, allow Wiksource to work
towards that with an equal amount of the flexibility
that is afforded to Wikipedia.  

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 