Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based
on a most curious and
imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass
the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore
hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting
its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
Hoi,
Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I
think you are completely wrong in this.
Thanks,
GerardM
Hi Gerard,
I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
read Eric's arguments:
http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
as well as this reply:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
and I'd be interested to know your view.
Thanks
luke
Hoi,
It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under
the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material
in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the
GFDL. Elementary.
Thanks,
GerardM
err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most
'free'
license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
(such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke