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)