Jens Ropers wrote:
> IMHO we would severely hamstring ourselves if we didn't allow this.
I don't think so. There might be some extreme cases in which we might
desperately need something that is unavailable under a free license
and also unavailable under a conservative interpretation of 'fair
use/fair dealing', but it is very hard to think of examples.
One very big issue is that if we permit ourselves to use content
under a proprietary license, we do two very bad things:
1. We dilute our standing as a shining example of what freedom can
bring. We lose the ability to speak publicly and say: "Look, the
claim that proprietary copyright is necessary for the production of
quality content is not true; we have proven it." Instead, we have to
point to our work and say "Well, some of it is free, but some of it is
proprietary, and we really needed the proprietary stuff to make it
work."
2. We remove the incentive for free alternatives to develop. Imagine
if I went to a major stock photo house and obtained, as a charitable
contribution, licenses for wikipedia-only use of photos of major
landmarks around the world. Then why should anyone bother to go out
and take a photo of the Leaning Tower of Pisa with Wikipedia in mind?
> There are some very important images out there that /should/ be
> included in the Wikipedia -- and we may just (given our "limited" legal
> resources) be unable to ever get them under "free" licenses.
I concede that there may well be *a few* rare cases where this is
absolutely necessary for scholarly integrity. We should make careful
judgments about those exceptions, on a case-by-case basis.
What we should *not* do is get lax about using non-free content as a
crutch because it is easier or more convenient.
--Jimbo
