[WikiEN-l] (no subject)

[Mike Finucane]

In reply to:
"Let's not get narky, eh?  I didn't like his tone, either,"

I'm sorry if my tone offends some; the record, it was generated by the 
following, which *I* didnt much like, either:

 > "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission 
only
 > > are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_.  We have
 > > tolerated them for some time..."

  I'm not writing here for the purposes of offending anyone; the purpose 
is to provoke some thought, if not discussion (I'm sure this has 
already been done, dont worry) on a policy which I find antithetical to 
the notion of a commons.  A secondary purpose is to provide feedback on 
why I personally, have been dissuaded from contributing material to 
Wikipedia.  I was in the process of going through my photo archive and 
linking them up to articles in Wikipedia, when I came across the 
requirement that they be open to profit-making; which pulled me up very 
quickly.  The above statement stopped me in my tracks.  If that 
information is useful to you, then well and good.  If not, it really 
doesnt make much difference to me.

In reply to:
 > Because Wikipedia is free as in freedom.  Your pictures are not free
 > (though apparently they are gratis); you are limiting who can 
distribute
 > them.  Please re-evaluate contributing to Wikipedia if you are 
unwilling
 > to support freedom.

My answer is that I do not see how enriching private corporations 
furthers freedom.  My pictures are indeed gratis.
The only objection I have is to allowing others to make profits from my 
work.  That definition of freedom isnt in my dictionary.
Ask the Java community how they feel about Gates embracing and 
extending their freedoms.

When freedom is defined by the ability of corporate persons to enrich 
themselves at the expense of the community, whether thats by patenting 
life forms, folk medicine, or whatever, then we have truly lost the 
idea of freedom.  It is of interest that the images allowable are still 
restricted - by for example the "by" atrribution.  Its only the "nc" 
that seems to draw howls of protest.

I cannot understand why people freely contributing material to be used 
by anyone else for whatever purposes they wish - EXCEPT to make a fast 
buck - is considered "if you are unwilling to support freedom."

I suppose we each have our definitions of what freedom truly is.
Mike