[Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet

Sun Jan 14 07:28:23 UTC 2007

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> luke brandt schreef:
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> luke brandt schreef:
>>>
>>>     
>>>> It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and
>>>> imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass
>>>> the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore
>>>> hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting
>>>> its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
>>>>       
>>> Hoi,
>>> Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I 
>>> think you are completely wrong in this.
>>> Thanks,
>>>      GerardM
>>>     
>> Hi Gerard,
>> I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
>> other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
>> too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
>> read Eric's arguments:
>>
>> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
>>
>> as well as this reply:
>>
>> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>>
>> and I'd be interested to know your view.
>>
>> Thanks
>> luke
> Hoi,
> It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under 
> the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material 
> in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the 
> GFDL. Elementary.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free'
license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
(such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke