--- Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
That is not the case whatsoever. We are commited
to
hosting freely distributable works.
The frontpage of en.wikisource.org states:
"Wikisource The Free Library is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors."
Even before the free content definition, the [[free content]] article Wikisource links to has stated:
"Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content."
Given this, it can be said that en.wikisource itself disagrees with you that "freely distributable" is sufficient. I believe it is crucial that Wikimedia projects follow a consistently high standard of freedom for the works they host. This gives users certainty about the freedoms they have, and compels those who wish to contribute content to choose a permissive model rather than the least permissive which is still acceptable.
Your argument for allowing non-free materials is a short term argument. It is based on the consideration that there are texts which are currently not available under free terms. If we follow your advice, we will host those materials, but give the people who hold rights over them no incentive to relax those restrictions. If we remain steadfast in our convictions, we can build upon the works which are currently accessible to us -- more than enough to grow a community -- and use our influence to compel more and more people to share our definition of freedom.
I find it hard to believe that you would even seriously make the argument that Wikisource should host texts which cannot be translated into other Wikisources.
Please pay me the compliment of believing what I say, however it stretches your credulity or however you would like to interpret the Main Page. Here is a link to most recent dissucion which took place on the most active and prominent page on enWS. Not single person spoke out against accepting the ND license.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Non_commercial_texts
<snip>
Why else is there an exception for fair use?
Fair use images are treated very differently from any free content.
- It has always been policy on en.wikipedia.org
that an article can never consist of fair use materials alone. All articles are at most enriched with fair use content, but their basis must always be free content. Material copied straight from the web is deleted immediately, and all the text must be licensed under the GFDL or more permissive terms. 2) Fair use images can be deleted when orphaned, replaced when a free alternative is found, removed when the fair use argument is questioned or a copyright holder complains. They are essentially "allowed on parole".
We can further develop this distinction if we are clear and consistent about only allowing two classes of material, free content and limited fair use to enrich that content.
Erik
When you have managed to limit fair use materials, I will examine the limits and re-evaluate my opiion. Currently enWP has pretty much any fair use material they can get away with. If the Foundation is willing to be that flexible there should be room for other limited licenses especially where the marterial is most valuable without modifications. I do not believe ND licences should be adopted on Wikipedia or other projects. Wikisource is in a uniquie situation where our content is desired in a fixed form without modifications. We have only the smallest number of articles that have even begun to be translated by editors and there a no active projects of translations. We should not exclude works simply because they cannot be translated, when it is highly unlikely there would even be such an interest. I am unconvinced that anything is gained by excluding ND licenses from Wikisource. As I said before if the Foundation wishes to follow the strictest principles of "free content" they should forbid fair use as well as non-derivative. However as long as these descisions continue to be arbitrary, I will fight to see that they are made so that Wikisource can be the best site possible with a balance of freedom and availabilty.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com