In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:26:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, morven@gmail.com writes:
I think the intended meaning was along the lines of "Current lack of a free image is not sufficient justification to use a non-free image".>>
--------------- That would make more sense, and is a position with which I think we could all agree. The observe and contrapositive do not necessarily follow.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I think the intended meaning was along the lines of "Current lack of a free image is not sufficient justification to use a non-free image".
That would make more sense, and is a position with which I think we could all agree.
It is the general consensus view, but I'm a little worried we may be failing to communicate quite what it means very well - it's the position you seem to have been arguing against all day!
See, an hour before, you said: "If we have no free-use image, we should be and are free to use a fair-use image *until* such time as we do have a free-use image."
So you insist that we can use non-free images when we don't currently have a free one, but then you agree that not having a free image just now *isn't* justification to use an non-free one. [1]
I may just be a little slow - I probably am, it's a Sunday evening - but it seems that these two positions are pretty much diametrically opposed to each other...