Mike Finucane wrote:
In reply to:
Because Wikipedia is free as in freedom. Your
pictures are not free
(though apparently they are gratis); you are limiting who can
distribute
them. Please re-evaluate contributing to
Wikipedia if you are
unwilling
> to support freedom.
That last sentence is an arrogant and insulting non-sequitur. What may
very well be an unwillingness to support one aspect of freedom should
not be used as a straw man to impugn a person's support of freedom in
general.
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.
The objective should not be to prevent corporations from using the
material, but to create a situation where use of the material could
taint the copyrightability of the context in which they place it
When freedom is defined by the ability of corporate
persons to enrich
themselves at the expense of the community, whether thats by patenting
life forms, folk medicine, or whatever, then we have truly lost the
idea of freedom. It is of interest that the images allowable are
still restricted - by for example the "by" atrribution. Its only the
"nc" that seems to draw howls of protest.
I don't disagree with your analysis of intellectual property abuse by
corporation, but it's naïve to think that simply denying them the
freedom to use the material will accomplish anything toward your goal.
Ec