Thanks Chip; At last some constructive comments. I'll bear these in mind. The issue for me though isnt really protection of my work, its about the future of Wikipedia, and what it stands for. To me its not about creating freedom for corporations, or making profits by selling google ads or whatever, and it certainly isnt about producing some printed encyclopedia.
To me the venture seemed to be about creating a location where private citizens could create a resource, instead of the commercial model of exploiting a resource. Reseeding the forest as it were, in a world where every word is copyrighted, every click of a mouse (thanks amazon) has a patent. Where McDonalds sues Mr MacDonald who runs a fish and chip van in glasgow, and dares to put his name on the top.
By creating free images, and free text, I saw a way to break the grip of corporatocracy on the culture of our civilization; where indigenous knowledge is patented along with the plants they use.
But there seems to be a strong belief among the wikiers that freedom isnt really freedom unless Bill Gates is allowed to take a cut.
There isnt really any point in me putting up copyright images, unless they are free for all non-profit uses, "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties."
And as long as corporations like about.com are allowed to continue making profits, I still see a threat in this to the very idea of Wikipedia. I know its all hunky-dory now, with About.com subsidizing Wiki; but not all sharks will be as friendly. I see Google, for example, as the ten-billion dollar Gorilla hiding in the wings. As a biophysicist, aware of how things work generally, I have a nasty hunch that this dream will end up like so many before it. As long as predators sniff a free lunch, there's a threat.
I see ways around this; by Wikipediers themselves distributing disks, or by themselves setting up a foundation to market copies, all profits going back to Wikipedia. By installing filters that different users are allowed to see different versions (commercial users are allowed only to use a weaker version, where some articles/photos are nc and not available to them. This means that Wiki remains the prime source.
But if one day Wikipedia stabilizes into the final form some dream of (thankfully mythical in my opinion, as knowledge is never static); then on that day, or as reasonably practical, then someone like Google can step in, double the content, and create a proprietary front end, or something else. The content will remain technically free, but effectively users will migrate to the new platform, and Wiki will fade away as just another experiment.
I need a place where I can provide my stuff somewhere where its available to everyone for free, but commercial companies have to pay to license its use. This money could go to support the project, or to save the rain forest, I dont care. But it removes the blood from the water, and sends the sharks elsewhere.
I have seen how copyright law works in the modern world; and it usually doesnt favor civilization. Corporations rule the lawmakers. I hope I'm proved wrong; sincerely. But my instinct tells me that where there's a profit motive for corporations, another resource will end up destroyed.
Where are CU-SeeMe? Netscape? Java? Fetch?
On 11/28/05, Mike Finucane mike_finucane@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks Chip; At last some constructive comments. I'll bear these in mind. The issue for me though isnt really protection of my work, its about the future of Wikipedia, and what it stands for. To me its not about creating freedom for corporations, or making profits by selling google ads or whatever, and it certainly isnt about producing some printed encyclopedia.
You should probably reconsider after realizing that Wikipedia was created by a corporation, I believe one which made most of its money off ads, in fact.
To me the venture seemed to be about creating a location where private citizens could create a resource, instead of the commercial model of exploiting a resource. Reseeding the forest as it were, in a world where every word is copyrighted, every click of a mouse (thanks amazon) has a patent. Where McDonalds sues Mr MacDonald who runs a fish and chip van in glasgow, and dares to put his name on the top.
By creating free images, and free text, I saw a way to break the grip of corporatocracy on the culture of our civilization; where indigenous knowledge is patented along with the plants they use.
Again, considering that the originator of Wikipedia *was* and *is* a for-profit corporation, that clearly wasn't the purpose for which Wikipedia was created. Wikipedia was created to be a free encyclopedia. Period. It wasn't created to tear down corporatocracy or anything like that.
But there seems to be a strong belief among the wikiers that freedom isnt really freedom unless Bill Gates is allowed to take a cut.
Well, yeah. Besides Bill Gates not being a corporation (let's pretend you said Microsoft), this is pretty much the definition of freedom on which Wikipedia was based. I mean, the FSF created the GFDL which is what the encyclopedia is released under, and if you read the documents of the FSF it'll be clear that a work with license restrictions which only allow non-commercial use is not a free work, it is a semi-free work.
There isnt really any point in me putting up copyright images, unless they are free for all non-profit uses, "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties."
And as long as corporations like about.com are allowed to continue making profits, I still see a threat in this to the very idea of Wikipedia. I know its all hunky-dory now, with About.com subsidizing Wiki; but not all sharks will be as friendly. I see Google, for example, as the ten-billion dollar Gorilla hiding in the wings. As a biophysicist, aware of how things work generally, I have a nasty hunch that this dream will end up like so many before it. As long as predators sniff a free lunch, there's a threat.
I see ways around this; by Wikipediers themselves distributing disks, or by themselves setting up a foundation to market copies, all profits going back to Wikipedia. By installing filters that different users are allowed to see different versions (commercial users are allowed only to use a weaker version, where some articles/photos are nc and not available to them. This means that Wiki remains the prime source.
But if one day Wikipedia stabilizes into the final form some dream of (thankfully mythical in my opinion, as knowledge is never static); then on that day, or as reasonably practical, then someone like Google can step in, double the content, and create a proprietary front end, or something else. The content will remain technically free, but effectively users will migrate to the new platform, and Wiki will fade away as just another experiment.
I need a place where I can provide my stuff somewhere where its available to everyone for free, but commercial companies have to pay to license its use. This money could go to support the project, or to save the rain forest, I dont care. But it removes the blood from the water, and sends the sharks elsewhere.
I have seen how copyright law works in the modern world; and it usually doesnt favor civilization. Corporations rule the lawmakers. I hope I'm proved wrong; sincerely. But my instinct tells me that where there's a profit motive for corporations, another resource will end up destroyed.
Where are CU-SeeMe? Netscape? Java? Fetch?
What is your point about CU-SeeMe, Netscape, Java, and Fetch? One is a language, the other three are proprietary products that have always been proprietary (I think, CU-SeeMe might actually be free). Maybe that's your point though. I can't figure out what it is.
On 11/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
You should probably reconsider after realizing that Wikipedia was created by a corporation, I believe one which made most of its money off ads, in fact.
"Bomis is a dot-com company founded in 1996. Its primary businesses are the sale of advertising on the Bomis.com search portal, and the sale of erotic images over the Internet (see also Internet pornography)."
Yep, ads and porn are why Wikipedia exists today. Throws a wrench in that whole "corporations can do nothing but evil" theory.
On 29 Nov 2005, at 01:04, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 11/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
You should probably reconsider after realizing that Wikipedia was created by a corporation, I believe one which made most of its money off ads, in fact.
"Bomis is a dot-com company founded in 1996. Its primary businesses are the sale of advertising on the Bomis.com search portal, and the sale of erotic images over the Internet (see also Internet pornography)."
Yep, ads and porn are why Wikipedia exists today. Throws a wrench in that whole "corporations can do nothing but evil" theory.
Slight rewrite of history. Jimbo made his money from options trading and set up Nupedia and Bomis at about the same time as far as I remember (I guess I should check the Wp article). Bomis profits may have funded Wp for a bit (and the corporations were for a while entangled), but I wouldnt say adds and porn funded it directly - the Spanish wp fork was about ads.
Justinc
On 11/28/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005, at 01:04, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 11/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
You should probably reconsider after realizing that Wikipedia was created by a corporation, I believe one which made most of its money off ads, in fact.
"Bomis is a dot-com company founded in 1996. Its primary businesses are the sale of advertising on the Bomis.com search portal, and the sale of erotic images over the Internet (see also Internet pornography)."
Yep, ads and porn are why Wikipedia exists today. Throws a wrench in that whole "corporations can do nothing but evil" theory.
Slight rewrite of history. Jimbo made his money from options trading and set up Nupedia and Bomis at about the same time as far as I remember (I guess I should check the Wp article). Bomis profits may have funded Wp for a bit (and the corporations were for a while entangled), but I wouldnt say adds and porn funded it directly - the Spanish wp fork was about ads.
Justinc
How could you accuse me of rewriting history when you admit yourself that you're not sure. Check the WP article. "Bomis is most notable for creating the online encyclopedia project Nupedia, and hiring Larry Sanger to manage it. During the early stages of this project, Sanger began the development of Wikipedia, which was originally intended as a sub-project and drafting platform for the more formally organized Nupedia. However, Wikipedia, with its much lower barrier to entry, rapidly outgrew its "parent", and soon became far larger than the main business of Bomis itself."
You could say ads and porn didn't fund Wikipedia *directly*, because Wikipedia itself didn't contain ads and porn. But Bomis did, and Bomis provided pretty much the sole funding for Wikipedia in the beginning. Wikipedia was a sub-project of Nupedia, which was a project of Bomis.
Also, from the [[Wikipedia]] article, "Nupedia was founded on 9 March 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a Web portal company." And "Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements."
Either the Wikipedia article(s) are wrong as well as my memory, in which case Jimbo should speak up and clarify so we can rewrite it, or my recollection of history is much more accurate than yours.
Anthony
On 29 Nov 2005, at 01:19, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
How could you accuse me of rewriting history when you admit yourself that you're not sure. Check the WP article. "Bomis is most notable for creating the online encyclopedia project Nupedia, and hiring Larry Sanger to manage it. During the early stages of this project, Sanger began the development of Wikipedia, which was originally intended as a sub-project and drafting platform for the more formally organized Nupedia. However, Wikipedia, with its much lower barrier to entry, rapidly outgrew its "parent", and soon became far larger than the main business of Bomis itself."
You could say ads and porn didn't fund Wikipedia *directly*, because Wikipedia itself didn't contain ads and porn. But Bomis did, and Bomis provided pretty much the sole funding for Wikipedia in the beginning. Wikipedia was a sub-project of Nupedia, which was a project of Bomis.
Also, from the [[Wikipedia]] article, "Nupedia was founded on 9 March 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a Web portal company." And "Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements."
Either the Wikipedia article(s) are wrong as well as my memory, in which case Jimbo should speak up and clarify so we can rewrite it, or my recollection of history is much more accurate than yours.
Sorry, yes I should have checked first. Apologies. Was based on my memory. I am not quite convinced by the article though, based on what Jimbo has said. He has always said that he personally paid for Nupedia (the sum of $250000 springs to mind); however as Bomis basically is Jimbo this is rather vague. Jimbo says Bomis never made large amounts of money (or lost it), and that he made his money before that. I think the article could be made more precise.
WP clearly was owned by Bomis. Its not that important, although as a footnote in the history of the web we should be the first to get it right.
Justinc
On 11/28/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005, at 01:19, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
How could you accuse me of rewriting history when you admit yourself that you're not sure. Check the WP article. "Bomis is most notable for creating the online encyclopedia project Nupedia, and hiring Larry Sanger to manage it. During the early stages of this project, Sanger began the development of Wikipedia, which was originally intended as a sub-project and drafting platform for the more formally organized Nupedia. However, Wikipedia, with its much lower barrier to entry, rapidly outgrew its "parent", and soon became far larger than the main business of Bomis itself."
You could say ads and porn didn't fund Wikipedia *directly*, because Wikipedia itself didn't contain ads and porn. But Bomis did, and Bomis provided pretty much the sole funding for Wikipedia in the beginning. Wikipedia was a sub-project of Nupedia, which was a project of Bomis.
Also, from the [[Wikipedia]] article, "Nupedia was founded on 9 March 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a Web portal company." And "Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements."
Either the Wikipedia article(s) are wrong as well as my memory, in which case Jimbo should speak up and clarify so we can rewrite it, or my recollection of history is much more accurate than yours.
Sorry, yes I should have checked first. Apologies. Was based on my memory. I am not quite convinced by the article though, based on what Jimbo has said. He has always said that he personally paid for Nupedia (the sum of $250000 springs to mind); however as Bomis basically is Jimbo this is rather vague. Jimbo says Bomis never made large amounts of money (or lost it), and that he made his money before that. I think the article could be made more precise.
Hmm, let me see if I can find this. I believe I specifically asked Jimbo about this discrepancy (the Wikipedia page for him says "In 2004, Wales had been quoted as saying that he spent around US$500,000 on the establishment and operations of his Wiki projects."), and he responded that the money technically came through Bomis. There was a quote he gave saying it came from him, but that was either a misquote or he was not being precise. But I could be mistaken on this one.
This could even be reconciled with Bomis not making much money, if the money was contributed to Bomis and then spent by Bomis. But now I'm starting to speculate.
WP clearly was owned by Bomis. Its not that important, although as a footnote in the history of the web we should be the first to get it right.
Justinc
I think it's important to realize that WP was started by a for-profit coporation when you make the suggestion that WP shouldn't be usable by for-profit corporations, especially when you suggest that this restriction was part of the original intention of the project.
Anthony
On 29 Nov 2005, at 02:10, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Hmm, let me see if I can find this. I believe I specifically asked Jimbo about this discrepancy (the Wikipedia page for him says "In 2004, Wales had been quoted as saying that he spent around US$500,000 on the establishment and operations of his Wiki projects."), and he responded that the money technically came through Bomis. There was a quote he gave saying it came from him, but that was either a misquote or he was not being precise. But I could be mistaken on this one.
This could even be reconciled with Bomis not making much money, if the money was contributed to Bomis and then spent by Bomis. But now I'm starting to speculate.
His money technically through Bomis sounds quite plausible.
WP clearly was owned by Bomis. Its not that important, although as a footnote in the history of the web we should be the first to get it right.
Justinc
I think it's important to realize that WP was started by a for-profit coporation when you make the suggestion that WP shouldn't be usable by for-profit corporations, especially when you suggest that this restriction was part of the original intention of the project.
I didnt suggest this thats someone else. I am entirely in favour of for profit uses. The curse of threaded mails again...
Justinc
Mike Finucane wrote:
Thanks Chip; At last some constructive comments. I'll bear these in mind. The issue for me though isnt really protection of my work, its about the future of Wikipedia, and what it stands for. To me its not about creating freedom for corporations, or making profits by selling google ads or whatever, and it certainly isnt about producing some printed encyclopedia.
The beauty of the GNU licenses is that they make it impossible for corporations to exploit the material. For instance, if some company tries to sell a book of GNU-licensed text and photos for $50, anybody can photocopy the entire thing and sell it for $15, or give copies away on street corners, and the company can't do a thing about it; any attempt will invalidate their license. That's why Microsoft treats Linux like a terrible disease, Stallman and Moglen designed an armorclad license and even Microsoft's army of lawyers haven't found any loopholes to exploit. Linux has been going strong as free software for fifteen years, and GNU tools even longer, so I'd say it's good evidence that the license prevents corporate exploitation.
Also, by saying "non-commercial only", you're excluding many worthwhile activities, for instance a 1-person print shop that's taken a job producing brochures for a women's shelter. Even though the shelter might be non-profit, if the print shop is a normal company, your non-commercial restriction prevents the shop from using your pictures in the brochure they produce.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
<snip>
Also, by saying "non-commercial only", you're excluding many worthwhile activities, for instance a 1-person print shop that's taken a job producing brochures for a women's shelter. Even though the shelter might be non-profit, if the print shop is a normal company, your non-commercial restriction prevents the shop from using your pictures in the brochure they produce.
Stan
Minor nit-pick: that situation is improbable because IIRC the brochure (if it used GFDL material) has to include the whole whopping GFDL licence in it. That's why Wikitravel (or whatever they're called) used the Creative Commons licence instead. Your basic analogy/example/metaphor/whatever still holds, though.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 11/28/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Minor nit-pick: that situation is improbable because IIRC the brochure (if it used GFDL material) has to include the whole whopping GFDL licence in it.
Which is why releasing a picture under the GFDL is de facto a Wikipedia-only license. There have been a few times where I've persuaded someone to release an image under GFDL (rather than not at all) by showing them how hard it would be for someone to legally use the image outside of a Wikipedia context, especially a print one.
-Matt
I think what you mean is Internet-only license. It is very easy to include the GFDL in an electronic medium. It is relatively hard to include it in a print one.
(As someone who WANTS his contributions to be used far and wide, in any medium, without even wanting attribution, I've started relicensing all of my images under CC-SA, because it seems even more free than GFDL in this respect).
FF
On 11/29/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Minor nit-pick: that situation is improbable because IIRC the brochure (if it used GFDL material) has to include the whole whopping GFDL licence in it.
Which is why releasing a picture under the GFDL is de facto a Wikipedia-only license. There have been a few times where I've persuaded someone to release an image under GFDL (rather than not at all) by showing them how hard it would be for someone to legally use the image outside of a Wikipedia context, especially a print one.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
I think what you mean is Internet-only license. It is very easy to include the GFDL in an electronic medium. It is relatively hard to include it in a print one.
It's not even an internet-only license: The only major category of works (of which I'm aware) for which displaying the GFDL in its entirety is burdensome is *short* printed works. Longer printed works are, after all, what the GFDL was originally intended for, and in fact most of the license makes clearer sense with printed works than on the internet ("front-cover texts" and so on). Printing the GFDL in a 300-page book isn't too much of a burden.
It *is* true that the FSF doesn't appear to have anticipated the possibility that people might want to reproduce short excerpts from GFDL'd works, rather than always reproducing the entire work as a book.
-Mark
I meant internet-only in relation to *images*.
It is burdensome to use *images* under the GFDL. Imagine attaching two pages of legalese to include one 3" X 3" illustration. It's not practical and there's no good reason to require it -- a simple tagline that says "this is licensed under X and Y, see this URL" is enough for me, personally.
That is -- yes, the GFDL was intended for longer printed works. I don't think it works well for short works or images outside of an electronic medium. What about audio works? I have a hard time imagining people including a copy of the GFDL in a CD cover -- it's longer than most linear notes.
I don't have any major gripes with the content of the GFDL, though I think it could probably be written a bit clearer in some parts. But the necessity to include the entire license, rather than, say, a reliable reference (a URL, a citation, whatever) to the license, seems to make it more practical in some mediums than others.
FF
On 11/29/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
I think what you mean is Internet-only license. It is very easy to include the GFDL in an electronic medium. It is relatively hard to include it in a print one.
It's not even an internet-only license: The only major category of works (of which I'm aware) for which displaying the GFDL in its entirety is burdensome is *short* printed works. Longer printed works are, after all, what the GFDL was originally intended for, and in fact most of the license makes clearer sense with printed works than on the internet ("front-cover texts" and so on). Printing the GFDL in a 300-page book isn't too much of a burden.
It *is* true that the FSF doesn't appear to have anticipated the possibility that people might want to reproduce short excerpts from GFDL'd works, rather than always reproducing the entire work as a book.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l