On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman
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
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.