Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this? I understand it and accept it, but I find it hard to respond to users who say, "Silly me, I thought we were building an encyclopedia here" and think that "educational/non-commercial purposes only" should be OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit weak. As does "We also building a totally free stock photography database". It's not hard to feel gypped when we should be serving WM projects first and foremost (and at the moment I doubt there's much outside use, but it's hard to tell).
So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user see why this requirement is necessary?
cheers, Brianna ([[commons:User:pfctdayelise]])
-- "Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife."
Brianna Laugher:
OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit weak.
Why's that? The Germans are already doing it: http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scripts/ts.dll?s=1&id=0C20BDC3&mp=...
Erik
OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit weak.
Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:
I know that, but that hardly changes the core goal of WP from being to build an online encyclopedia. EN.wp is hugely successful without doing that. I doubt it is in most editors' minds as the point of the exercise. They just want to improve a fish article with a drawing of that fish (etc). Ensuring maximum reuse rights for everyone else is not at the top of their priority list.
Brianna
-- "Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife."
Brianna Laugher:
OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit weak.
Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:
I know that, but that hardly changes the core goal of WP from being to build an online encyclopedia. EN.wp is hugely successful without doing that. I doubt it is in most editors' minds as the point of the exercise. They just want to improve a fish article with a drawing of that fish (etc). Ensuring maximum reuse rights for everyone else is not at the top of their priority list.
But it is at the top of the Wikimedia Foundation's priority list: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
en.wp is "hugely successful" in countries with broadly available, cheap, fast Internet access. When I was in South Africa, a DVD and regular DVD updates of the English WP was the main thing people there asked for to use Wikipedia content in schools. Partnerships with commercial entities are one good way to make that happen.
The licensing framework of Wikipedia and its sister projects is chosen in such a way to maximize distribution and derivative works. However, I do agree that a Wikimedia FAQ or position paper on these issues, including examples and anecdotes, might be a good way to educate editors about the goals of the Foundation.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Brianna Laugher:
OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit weak.
Why's that? The Germans are already doing it: http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scripts/ts.dll?s=1&id=0C20BDC3&mp=...
Yes, but I think what Brianna meant about it sounding weak is that for many contributors, the idea that we might sell DVDs to make money is not by itself particularly compelling.
Hi Wikipedians,
Brianna Laugher schrieb am 03.04.2006 13:16:
Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this? I understand it and accept it, but I find it hard to respond to users who say, "Silly me, I thought we were building an encyclopedia here" and think that "educational/non-commercial purposes only" should be OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit weak. As does "We also building a totally free stock photography database". It's not hard to feel gypped when we should be serving WM projects first and foremost (and at the moment I doubt there's much outside use, but it's hard to tell).
So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user see why this requirement is necessary?
Erik wrote a good statement about NC licensing, which can be found here: http://www.intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
Bye, Tim.
2006/4/3, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user see why this requirement is necessary?
NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL. CC-BY-SA on the other hand is incompatible on a technical level only. That is, the rules specify that one cannot cross-license, but the spirit of both licenses is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step from requiring everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a much larger step, and we could not reasonably consider an article as a whole to be GFDL if there are such images in it.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL. CC-BY-SA on the other hand is incompatible on a technical level only. That is, the rules specify that one cannot cross-license, but the spirit of both licenses is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step from requiring everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a much larger step, and we could not reasonably consider an article as a whole to be GFDL if there are such images in it.
Well, true (although GFDL has that annoying requirement to print/include the license alongside the product, which is why I despise it for images), but I guess that raises the more central question of: what is the big deal about WP being GFDL? My understanding is that GFDL was chosen as the time partly beause it was the most well-known copyleft license suitable for text. If we had that time again, would we still choose GFDL? How about CC-BY-SA? How about CC-BY-NC? What is the killer argument that Wikipedia should be allowed to be reused in a commercial setting? (I obviously don't consider the DVD argument to be a killer argument.)
Brianna
NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL.
CC-BY-SA on the other
hand is incompatible on a technical level only.
That is, the rules
specify that one cannot cross-license, but the
spirit of both licenses
is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step
from requiring
everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a
much larger step, and
we could not reasonably consider an article as a
whole to be GFDL if
there are such images in it.
Well, true (although GFDL has that annoying requirement to print/include the license alongside the product, which is why I despise it for images), but I guess that raises the more central question of: what is the big deal about WP being GFDL? My understanding is that GFDL was chosen as the time partly beause it was the most well-known copyleft license suitable for text. If we had that time again, would we still choose GFDL? How about CC-BY-SA? How about CC-BY-NC? What is the killer argument that Wikipedia should be allowed to be reused in a commercial setting? (I obviously don't consider the DVD argument to be a killer argument.)
Brianna
The reason, as far as I see it, is that commerciality should not be an issue: if someone need to charge for material, than he should not be prevented by license restrictions. If anyone wants to print a book of Wikipedia material, they can't if the material is NC. Some parts of the world don't have access to Internet, so printing is the only possibility, and printing costs money.
/ Fred
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?
One of the things we want to do is empower broad competitive distribution of our work at low cost. When we have a license which is compatible with commercial redistribution, we empower small scale (or large scale) entrepreneurs to competitively print (or burn onto CD) our work for sale to people who can afford the costs of distribution, but who can not afford the costs of proprietary content.
At the same time, we also do nothing thereby to stand in the way of people acting charitably to distribute the same thing for free as in beer.
Noncommercial licenses are deeply flawed as a way to help the poor.
--Jimbo
On 4/3/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?
I usually point out that Ask.com is ''already'' using Wikipedia and Commons content for commercial purposes. For example, the top of http://www.ask.com/web?q=Petersen+graph shows an image from the Commons.
If I understand correctly, every mirror that uses ads (like http://pedia.walla.co.il for he) is commercial usage, so NC/ND is not practical even now... Nadav ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Benbennick" dbenbenn@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [Commons-l] justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement
On 4/3/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?
I usually point out that Ask.com is ''already'' using Wikipedia and Commons content for commercial purposes. For example, the top of http://www.ask.com/web?q=Petersen+graph shows an image from the Commons. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l