--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
We recognize that the inclusion of this content
is a violation of the
other half the goal of the project. As a result
it is only permitted
to include fair use in English wikipedia where
doing so compromises
our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid
compromising their
ability to be a source of original texts, you do
not want to allow
them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that
you are of the
opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not
allow fair use in
any form whatsoever, is not a quality
encyclopedia?
I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most) text. As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot legally be translated is not a free document. But translation doesn't apply to most images. The same applies, although to a lesser extent, for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
Here is where I really am not understanding this policy. Wikisource does not allow fair use claims, but if we did allow something under fair use derivative works would be forbidden. We would not be able to allow translations of something under fair use and fair use *is* about more than images. So I just do not see the rational reasoning in this at all. It seems to me like fair use is being allowed simply because people do not want to have to delete "unfree" material that they have gotten used to having. Because it would hamstring Wikipedia. I understand that but I do not understand why such reasoning cannot be applied to other projects.
Obviously we want to have as many things be as free as possible, but it is not always possible which this policy concedes. When Wikisource contains giant gaps in the coverage of certain categories it fails to be useful in those areas at all. If the overriding goal of WMF is to focus on solely on "free content" by this definition, then Wikisource can focus its enerigies in other areas and change it's scope a bit. And let us see Wikipedia also prove how much can be done with "free content" alone. But if being successful is truly half of our goal, allow Wiksource to work towards that with an equal amount of the flexibility that is afforded to Wikipedia.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com