[WikiEN-l] (no subject)

[Matt R]

--- Mike Finucane <mike_finucane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

With "copyleft" licenses like the GFDL, you can make a profit from the use of
the work, but you certainly cannot do so at the expense of the community. That
is, you can't restrict how other people use the work, and if you make changes,
you have to publish them under the same license. That is, even the most
cynical, selfish, profiteering use of a copyleft work by some unethical company
cannot take anything away from the community. Moreover, there are plenty of
benevolent cases for commercial reuse: e.g. DVD sales to fund Wikipedia
servers, etc. 

It can be a case of definitions, but in my view, freedom is the ability to act
without restriction, and therefore prohibiting people from reusing images in a
commercial context is taking away from their freedom.

-- Matt


Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com