On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 08:58, Axel Boldt wrote:
--- Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:
It might, if this were a project that fights
against intellectual
property rights. It isn't. It's a project that fights *for*
intellectual property rights *for everyone*.
... as long as it is understood that "everyone" is defined as "everyone
who is able and willing to use a license compatible with GFDL". Those
who for various reasons use one of the couple dozen incompatible open
content licenses are granted by us only a single right: the right to
read. That's exactly what they get from
encyclopedia.com as well.
Nonsense. They have the right to use and reuse and redistribute and
modify and rerelease the GFDL content _under the GFDL license_. They
just can't rerelease it _under a different license_. This is *the whole
point* of using such a license -- ensuring that those rights continue to
be protected by requiring the same license terms to be used for
redistribution.
This doesn't hurt people who use other licenses for other works -- as
you may or may not be aware, one isn't required to use the same license
for everything one does in life. :)
It may "hurt" people who have decided to use YAOCL and want to integrate
free content into another work without providing the same set of
protections that allowed them to get it. Well sorry, bub, but that's the
point. If we dilute the protections by letting any old license be used,
you can expect a read-only embraced & extended version of Wikipedia
peppered with material that's uncopyable under any license. If that's
your idea of freedom, I suppose that prisoners are "free" to try to
escape from prison at any time. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)