On 2/9/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
1) Making the division clearer. One way to do so would
be to caption
every image that is used under an exemption doctrine with a notice to
that effect, e.g. "Copyright (C) XYZ. Used under fair use. [[About
fair use in Wikipedia]]" That latter link could explain our policies,
our desire for replacements, and the general free culture philosophy
underlying this framework.
Rather a lot of the time we don't know exactly who XYZ is.
2) Liberation of non-free works. For many pictures, liberating them
will be a matter of paying a certain amount to the copyright holder.
So perhaps what is needed is a Content Liberation Group, either a
point of contact within WMF, or a separate non-profit which seeks to
raise funds to free existing works. I would favor the second option,
as it could then be generalized to non-free software, and other works
which are not as relevant to us.
There are various projects floating around to do this.
Such a CLG could also systematically contact copyright holders of
works which are no longer financially relevant. It could develop tools
that make this process efficient and scalable. As Board member, I
would be in favor of the WMF bootstrapping such a thing, even if it
becomes a separate organization.
Problem is most of these works are not in a digital form and we have
no way of scanning in bulk.
3) The permanently non-free. Here I'm not
referring to Mickey Mouse.
Mickey is non-free, but it could theoretically be bought, or its
copyright could expire (it would have if not for Disney's purchase of
politicians to prevent it from happening).
That was more to do with bringing the US in line with most of the rest
of the planet.
Even Wikimedia does not put its logos under an
existing free license.
I don't like the Debian approach of using two logos much because it
tends to lead to either confusion or dominance of one over the other
(who even knows the non-free Debian logo?). And this is one instance
where there has been infighting within the free culture movement --
Debian shouting at Mozilla and vice versa. A Firefox fork named
Iceweasel. Silliness.
A rational response to the situation. It is not unreasonable for those
who want to stuff to be free to take steps to make sure it is.
I think we may have to sit down with the CC folks, the FSF, Debian,
and other stakeholders and try to develop an "Identifying Works
License" or something like that, a license which grants certain
liberties, as long as the use identifies only the desired entity and
_nothing else_.
FSF and Debian will likely say no given that it runs against their
core philosophy. CC will probably produce half a dozen licences by
lunchtime.
It might permit modifications if they used only for
commentary and nothing else, and so on. It might even have to make
explicit reference to commercial vs. non-commercial use.
Please don't suggest this to RMS in person I don't want to have to
hold an election for a replacement board member.
--
geni