[WikiEN-l] (no subject)

[Ray Saintonge]

Mike Finucane wrote:

> 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. 

That last sentence is an arrogant and insulting non-sequitur.  What may 
very well be an unwillingness to support one aspect of freedom should 
not be used as a straw man to impugn a person's support of freedom in 
general.

> 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. 

The objective should not be to prevent corporations from using the 
material, but to create a situation where use of the material could 
taint the copyrightability of the context in which they place it

> 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 don't disagree with your analysis of intellectual property abuse by 
corporation, but it's naïve to think that simply denying them the 
freedom to use the material will accomplish anything toward your goal.

Ec