--- Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia
The definition makes it easy to resolve the question
of which licenses
to allow or disallow across projects. For example, a
Wikimedia-wide
policy could be that: "All content in all projects
must be free
content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0, with
the exception of
works which are used under exemptions granted by
national copyright
laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States. These
exemptions are
defined on a per-project and per-language basis."
I have a problem with Wikimedia adopting this proposal
as Wikisource certainly has a place for documents
availble under licences forbidding modification. I do
not have specific examples in mind, but we already
have policy of protecting all works from modification
once they have been proofread to a certain degree. I
wonder if your awarenes of this issue was behind the
reason Wikisource was excluded from your breakdown of
the ramications of the definition on each project. I
can understand why you would want to define "free
content" in this way, however I am strongly against
Wikimedia adopting this definition as policy across
projects.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com