On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
I don't agree at all. Our goal is to make a free content encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost. ND content is not free.
Neither is "fair use content", of course.
And I went into an extensive explination of why fair use is a reasonable exception, but you ignored it.
By allowing ND images we would be in a position of three possibilities: no image, a free image, or an ND image which is 'free enough' to post on our website but fails our goal of producing free content. If we allow ND images it will specifically be at the expense of free images. A downstream users who can't accept unfree content will be in a worse position if we were to make that decision.
No, you misunderstand. ND images would only be allowed in situations where fair use images are currently allowed.
Explain how this would work? So would we only allow images while, while being ND, we could also claim fair use? Guess what: We already permit that on enwiki.
If that isn't what you mean, how can you claim that they would only be allowed where where fair use images are allowed?
[snip]
Who are you expecting to convince? The impact on the real commercial value of the work between GFDL and a ND license is minimal. ND licenses primarily appeal to the vanity of artists who are not sufficiently satisfied by mere attribution.
Well, we disagree here. I think there's a huge difference between ND and GFDL. There's only one way to find out for sure, though, and that's to give it a try. Allow ND in places where fair use is already allowed, and see if you get any takers.
I never argued that there isn't a huge difference, in fact I argued that ND is intolerable. There is a difference, and it's not a good difference. We already allow ND content to be used as fair use.
It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content.
I just don't see what freedom is being given up. An image which *is* licensed under CC-ND is more free than an image which is not.
Of all the outragious bullshit... Sure, an image under CC-ND is more free than a random unlicensed work. It would not be more free than the free images they would replace if we permitted them.
The only people I've ever encountered that had interest in by-nd were photographers I found on forums and nagged to come submit works to wikipedia. By being only willing to release their work under an unfree license it is clear that they are not interested in helping us.
Hey, if your answer is to remove all non-free images completely from Wikipedia, you have no objection from me. My suggestion was merely to replace one set of non-free images with another set of non-free images which were more free.
You are either misrepresenting your position (that it really is to only perform a 1:1 replacement), or your argument is pointless because we already permit it (If a work is fair use we don't care about its license terms, you can upload BY-NC-ND stuff all day as fair use on enwiki).