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. The ability to create useful derivative works such as translations is exactly one of the key benefits a project like Wikisource can provide over traditional web sites such as Project Gutenberg.
the material of Wikimedia will not be universally free everywhere.
There are local laws which can impede the freedom of content we host. This typically applies to the question of when content enters the public domain. I believe that we should follow the laws of the country where the content originates, except in cases where these laws deviate heavily from internationally prevalent standards.
Regarding the fr.wikisource.org example, I believe the text should either be removed from all projects, or none.
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