On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 07:53, Alex R. wrote:
Ops, sorry, I realize that this was not posted to the list.
Well, I guess I'll post my reply to that back to the list then.
====
Alex, just a few points. I don't want us to get all worked up and argue past each other.
First: the wiki is a means to an end. It's a *really cool* means, but fundamentally it's got a purpose other than just being a fun way to pass the time with some friendly folks.
That purpose is to "create an information source in an encyclopedia format that is freely available. The license we use grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed _so long_ as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges Wikipedia as the source. Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom." (Quoted from Wikipedia:Copyrights.)
Third party reuse, modification, and redistribution is a fundamental goal of Wikipedia, not an unsavory side-effect of the license. It is our duty as Wikipedians to think of our readers, our users, our republishers, and provide them with good material that should work well as it is for an encyclopedia, and can be remolded to other uses.
Third party reuse may have different goals from the encyclopedia; for instance adapting encyclopedia articles into textbooks or lesson plans or travel guides; narrowing the scope and adding more technical detail; widening the scope and reducing detail; giving emphasis to a different subject or point of view; altering the language to suit a different age group; translating to another language entirely; adaptation to another medium (voice, or narration for a video); etc. They may be noncommercial (distribution via web gratis) or commercial (distribution of books or DVDs for a fee, with "transparent" editable version of FDL works included or available on request for cost of reproduction).
That's why for instance a number of us (of which I am one) are so suspicious of "fair use" images, where in our editing/publishing software images are not directly tied to their usages, but "fair use" as a legal concept is intimately connected to the circumstances of a particular usage. It creates another potential barrier to re-use, which harms the goals of the project.
Editions of articles that have been released to Wikipedia are released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. They are never un-published or withdrawn from circulation, though perhaps they get moved to the back shelf while a shinier new edition is put up in the front of the store. They continue to be further published under that license, because Wikipedia has no other license to publish them under.
(The exception would be for materials that Wikipedia can't publish because the license was invalid, in which case they should be withdrawn from circulation. That's why we have a deletion function, and if necessary can pull individual revisions that are determined to not be distributable after all.)
It is an essential freedom that users not be forced to use some particular edition of an article if it does not suit their needs as well as another edition. A newer edition may be a "better" encyclopedia article than the last (at least, in some people's opinions), but this does not and should not nullify the existence of available different editions. I suspect it's not very often that people would dig back for old revisions to work from, but the claim that they _shouldn't be able to_ is horrifying to me.
As far as issues of how many authors need to be credited etc for compliance; that's an issue we'd all like to see better sorted out, but it doesn't seem terribly relevant here. If you redistribute a particular edition, of course you'll only need to credit the authors who contributed to the history of that edition. I don't see how it could be otherwise.
Anyway, I apologize if anything I've said sounds rude or short (or if I just come off as an ignorant ass). It's just that I care a lot about this project and can get a little defensive when I feel it's being threatened. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)