--- Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)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.
1) 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