Mike Finucane 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.
The beauty of the GNU licenses is that they make it impossible for corporations to exploit the material. For instance, if some company tries to sell a book of GNU-licensed text and photos for $50, anybody can photocopy the entire thing and sell it for $15, or give copies away on street corners, and the company can't do a thing about it; any attempt will invalidate their license. That's why Microsoft treats Linux like a terrible disease, Stallman and Moglen designed an armorclad license and even Microsoft's army of lawyers haven't found any loopholes to exploit. Linux has been going strong as free software for fifteen years, and GNU tools even longer, so I'd say it's good evidence that the license prevents corporate exploitation.
Also, by saying "non-commercial only", you're excluding many worthwhile activities, for instance a 1-person print shop that's taken a job producing brochures for a women's shelter. Even though the shelter might be non-profit, if the print shop is a normal company, your non-commercial restriction prevents the shop from using your pictures in the brochure they produce.
Stan