Lars Aronsson wrote:
luke brandt wrote:
err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free
encyclopedia" begs the
question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most
'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most
suitable license for a wiki either.
It is quite embarrassing to think that you would be uneducated
about these definitions and the history of Wikipedia. Surely this
is covered in the FAQs.
You can wish for any license you want, and then all you need is to
invent a time machine to go back to 2001 and implement your ideas.
If you are talking about a completely new project, not Wikipedia,
then you can pick any license you want.
Hi Lars,
In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen
in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has
the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose. Assume
a contributor were to take legal action against us....presumably they
would have been harmed in some way...how exactly? It reminds me of the
case of a gentleman who was 'hurt' when the 'cut' of his suit was
criticised :)
But you didn't address the issue of freedom in the abstract case yet.
Here is one rationale for the stand on "non-commercial" licenses.
I suppose you know the saying "Give a man a fish; you have fed him
for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a
lifetime". Free software projects such as Linux and free contents
projects such as Wikipedia are recipies for making your own
fishing rod, aiming to give the fish-catcher the most freedom.
What if you use it to catch some fish? Are you allowed to sell
that? Or does your fishing rod come with a limiting clause that
says you can only use this tool for Non-Commercial (NC) purposes?
Which kind of license gives you the most freedom?
I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do
you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a
profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke