On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone.
Well said - I couldn't agree more.
Personally, I care whether or not reusers attempt to follow the spirit of the copyleft and make their changes and contributions available for future reuse.
You're mixing issues - nobody has a problem with 'follow[ing] the spirit of the copyleft', it's making them jump through arbitrary hoops to do so that is the problem.
If we wanted to be truly free, we would all license our work into the public domain, but instead we work under a copyleft and I consider honoring that distinction to be important.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise. There are plenty of good reasons not to use public domain and I for one certainly value the 'protection' of CC-BY-SA without the 'exclusion' of detailed (yet meaningless) attributions.
Sam