In reply to: "Let's not get narky, eh? I didn't like his tone, either," I'm sorry if my tone offends some; the record, it was generated by the following, which *I* didnt much like, either: only I'm not writing here for the purposes of offending anyone; the purpose is to provoke some thought, if not discussion (I'm sure this has already been done, dont worry) on a policy which I find antithetical to the notion of a commons. A secondary purpose is to provide feedback on why I personally, have been dissuaded from contributing material to Wikipedia. I was in the process of going through my photo archive and linking them up to articles in Wikipedia, when I came across the requirement that they be open to profit-making; which pulled me up very quickly. The above statement stopped me in my tracks. If that information is useful to you, then well and good. If not, it really doesnt make much difference to me. In reply to: distribute unwilling 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. 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 cannot understand why people freely contributing material to be used by anyone else for whatever purposes they wish - EXCEPT to make a fast buck - is considered "if you are unwilling to support freedom." I suppose we each have our definitions of what freedom truly is. Mike