On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I honestly thought the words "selling out"
were invoked in a
deliberate attempt to be inflammatory, as that's the only reason I'd
use them. I guess I misunderstood, sorry.
In the sentence I used the phrase "sell out", I did put a smiley at
the end. I dunno, reading it over again it wasn't meant to be
inflammatory, and that actual sentence was meant to be humorous more
than anything ("if you're gonna sell out, at least make a decent
amount doing so").
Anyway, apology accepted, and since I could have phrased things more
nicely I apologize for that.
I don't understand how we could be commited to
free content yet
opposed to certain groups from making free use of the free content or
identifying and promoting its free source. I guess I don't understand
your position at all.
I don't have a problem with Google using the free content in Google
Earth. I'd like to say hey, if you use the free content then
everything you package with it has to be free as well, but the GFDL
almost surely doesn't say that, so it's irrelevant.
What I was specifically commenting on was the use of the Wikipedia
logo. While you could argue that the logo should be free for anyone
to use to identify Wikipedia content, that's not the reality of the
situation. So the logo is more than just an identifier, it's a stamp
of approval, and I don't think Google Earth deserves Wikipedia's stamp
of approval. When there was a similar discussion regarding Answers
Corporation I think the best argument against the partnership was
based on the fact that the One-Click Answers software was proprietary
and therefore not worthy of the Wikipedia name. At the time I still
supported giving Answers a trial period while it became more clear
whether or not anyone was interested in creating an open source
competitor, but in hindsight even that was probably a mistake as it
fails the "if you're gonna sell out, at least make a decent amount
doing so" test.
Other than the logo, if all Google is doing is downloading the exact
same dumps that are available to everyone else, then I don't have any
problem with that part. Google is most likely in violation of the
GFDL for various reasons, some of which were already mentioned (like
having no history section), but so is pretty much everyone else, so
that part I've avoided discussing (the next version of the GFDL will
fix many of these issues anyway, and if the GNU Wiki License ever gets
implemented it might solve all of them).
Finally, you say that Google is "identifying and promoting [the] free
source" of the content. But to that I'd say Wikipedia isn't the
source of the content, the individual authors are, and Google isn't
identifying or promoting us at all. To quote you: "The foundation
does not own the copyright to the content of Wikipedia, the editors
do, the foundation did not create this encyclopedia the editors did,
this project could continue without the foundation but not without the
editors."
It seems I often can't figure you out and I feel
bad about that.
Perhaps we could meet in person sometime? Your choice of food or drink on me.
As far as not being able to figure me out, that's my fault I'm sure,
since it's something I hear over and over again. I'll let you know
about the meetup thing I guess.
And thanks for all the images you've contributed under a free license.
Most of them are way better than anything I've ever done.
Anthony