On 06/11/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Because of some rather legalistic interpretations
of the policy, the
> template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a
> rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a
> rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't
> actually considered a rationale.
I sometimes wonder if this is an elaborate trick to
put people off
using non-free images, simply by making it such a hassle that it's not
worth their time...
There's probably a bit of that. The problem is that we have a firehose
of nonfree stuff being uploaded under the hitherto-unknown "I wanna!"
clause of US fair use law. So cleaning it up is getting a bit harsher.
I'm a big fan of fair use when encyclopedically useful (and we could
get away with *FAR* more than we do), but the floods of crap and the
whinier flooders are really quite, um, annoying.
- d.