Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
Hello, Following a deletion debate on Commons [1], we are left with the problem whether or not Public domain images that are under other restrictions, such as coats of arms, are allowed under the Foundation Licensing policy. If I quote Erik Moeller, from another thread [2] on the mailing list:
'[...]the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_".[...]'
However, since we are talking about public domain, this does not apply for this image, since public domain is not a license.
Public domain overrides licences. Something that is in the public domain is, in simplest terms, owned by the public. Hypothesizing vague other restrictions gets us nowhere. It creates an atmosphere where unforseen and unforseeable restrictions lurk at every turn. A good solid principle in law is that that which is not forbidden is permitted. We do ourselves a serious disservice if in establishing a policy to deal with copyright we start to draw in other possibilities. While such other restrictions may be perfectly valid, they should be treated separately rather than under the guise of copyright. At that point they need to be made clear and specific.
This means that another section of the resolution applies:
'[...] or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.'
Which is not the case, this specific image is under more restrictions; see the deletion debate for details. Is this analysis correct? Or should we just treat public domain as a "free content license"?
A free content licence should work to make content more free, not less free. It is useful to make being free dependent on characteristics inherent in the work itself rather than ones that depend on how a user employs the work. The latter is completely beyond our control.
Ec