[WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 11/28/05, Mike Finucane <mike_finucane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks Chip;
> At last some constructive comments.  I'll bear these in mind.  The
> issue for me though isnt really protection of my work,
> its about the future of Wikipedia, and what it stands for.  To me its
> not about creating freedom for corporations, or making profits by
> selling google ads or whatever, and it certainly isnt about producing
> some printed encyclopedia.
>
You should probably reconsider after realizing that Wikipedia was
created by a corporation, I believe one which made most of its money
off ads, in fact.

> To me the venture seemed to be about creating a location where private
> citizens could create a resource, instead of the commercial model of
> exploiting a resource.  Reseeding the forest as it were, in a world
> where every word is copyrighted, every click of a mouse (thanks amazon)
> has a patent.  Where McDonalds sues Mr MacDonald who runs a fish and
> chip van in glasgow, and dares to put his name on the top.
>
> By creating free images, and free text, I saw a way to break the grip
> of corporatocracy on the culture of our civilization; where indigenous
> knowledge is patented along with the plants they use.
>
Again, considering that the originator of Wikipedia *was* and *is* a
for-profit corporation, that clearly wasn't the purpose for which
Wikipedia was created.  Wikipedia was created to be a free
encyclopedia.  Period.  It wasn't created to tear down corporatocracy
or anything like that.

> But there seems to be a strong belief among the wikiers that freedom
> isnt really freedom unless Bill Gates is allowed to take a cut.
>
Well, yeah.  Besides Bill Gates not being a corporation (let's pretend
you said Microsoft), this is pretty much the definition of freedom on
which Wikipedia was based.  I mean, the FSF created the GFDL which is
what the encyclopedia is released under, and if you read the documents
of the FSF it'll be clear that a work with license restrictions which
only allow non-commercial use is not a free work, it is a semi-free
work.

> There isnt really any point in me putting up copyright images, unless
> they are free for all non-profit uses, "the copyright holder has
> granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This
> permission does not extend to third parties."
>
> And as long as corporations like about.com are allowed to continue
> making profits, I still see a threat in this to the very idea of
> Wikipedia.
> I know its all hunky-dory now, with About.com subsidizing Wiki; but not
> all sharks will be as friendly.  I see Google, for example, as the
> ten-billion dollar Gorilla hiding in the wings.  As a biophysicist,
> aware of how things work generally, I have a nasty hunch that this
> dream will end up like so many before it.  As long as predators sniff a
> free lunch, there's a threat.
>
> I see ways around this; by Wikipediers themselves distributing disks,
> or by themselves setting up a foundation to market copies, all profits
> going back to Wikipedia.  By installing filters that different users
> are allowed to see different versions (commercial users are allowed
> only to use a weaker version, where some articles/photos are nc and not
> available to them.  This means that Wiki remains the prime source.
>
> But if one day Wikipedia stabilizes into the final form some dream of
> (thankfully mythical in my opinion, as knowledge is never static); then
> on that day, or as reasonably practical, then someone like Google can
> step in, double the content, and create a proprietary front end, or
> something else.  The content will remain technically free, but
> effectively users will migrate to the new platform, and Wiki will fade
> away as just another experiment.
>
> I need a place where I can provide my stuff somewhere where its
> available to everyone for free, but commercial companies have to pay to
> license its use.  This money could go to support the project, or to
> save the rain forest, I dont care.  But it removes the blood from the
> water, and sends the sharks elsewhere.
>
> I have seen how copyright law works in the modern world; and it usually
> doesnt favor civilization.  Corporations rule the lawmakers.
> I hope I'm proved wrong; sincerely.  But my instinct tells me that
> where there's a profit motive for corporations, another resource will
> end up destroyed.
>
> Where are CU-SeeMe? Netscape? Java? Fetch?

What is your point about CU-SeeMe, Netscape, Java, and Fetch?  One is
a language, the other three are proprietary products that have always
been proprietary (I think, CU-SeeMe might actually be free).  Maybe
that's your point though.  I can't figure out what it is.