--- Mike Finucane mike_finucane@yahoo.com wrote:
My answer is that I do not see how enriching private corporations furthers freedom. My pictures are indeed gratis. The only objection I have is to allowing others to make profits from my work. That definition of freedom isnt in my dictionary. Ask the Java community how they feel about Gates embracing and extending their freedoms.
When freedom is defined by the ability of corporate persons to enrich themselves at the expense of the community
With "copyleft" licenses like the GFDL, you can make a profit from the use of the work, but you certainly cannot do so at the expense of the community. That is, you can't restrict how other people use the work, and if you make changes, you have to publish them under the same license. That is, even the most cynical, selfish, profiteering use of a copyleft work by some unethical company cannot take anything away from the community. Moreover, there are plenty of benevolent cases for commercial reuse: e.g. DVD sales to fund Wikipedia servers, etc.
It can be a case of definitions, but in my view, freedom is the ability to act without restriction, and therefore prohibiting people from reusing images in a commercial context is taking away from their freedom.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com