On 9/12/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Our "free" is libre, not gratis (though of course Wikipedia itself is also available free of charge). That does not mean, however, that all the content we link to or reference must be either gratis or libre.
You're the second person to point this out in this thread, but as a point of order, I feel compelled to point out that free-libre almost certainly requires free-gratis as well. The fact that JSTOR is a paid resource subsequently means that it's not a free-libre resource.
Free-libre and free-gratis have nothing to do with each other. You can charge for "free" software and "free" content. That is not in itself a big deal.
JSTOR is not specifically free-libre either, though -- individual copyrights, where they are still in force, are held by the individual journals, and JSTOR's terms of use implies that you will not re-distribute JSTOR content even if it is out of copyright.
That being said, as was noted Wikipedia's dually free status does not mean that we link to free (in either sense) content. So the point is really moot as far as I can tell.
FF