Andre Engels wrote:
I don't know what arguments the Wikimedia lawyers
have, but as far as
I can see, the GNU/FDL does not allow publishing something under it
with restrictions going beyond those of the GNU/FDL, which this would
be. If someone has arguments why this would be allowed, I would love
to hear them.
Andre Engels
On 5/5/05, Tomasz Sienicki <tsca(a)edb.dk> wrote:
> "After the consultation with Wikimedia lawyers I can inform you that
> it is acceptable to import content to our Wiki under the licence
> disallowing its commercial re-use," wrote the admin of one of the
> Wikimedia projects and entered into a co-operation with a certain
> external service (with the aim of importing their content to the Wiki
> under such non-commmercial re-use only licence; although the service
> agreed to relicence their content as PD, the admin suggested CC BY-NC).
>
> My personal opinion is that this goes against the policy of Wikimedia
> and violates the principles crucial to a lot of people who contribute
> to the Wikis. I don't mention names here as I believe it is a
> misunderstanding and that the person in question acts in good faith.
>
> However, I'd like to hear the Board's official opinion: are there
> circumstances under which the above licence is acceptable for
> Wikimedia Wikis (texts)? Is it even debatable?
>
> Thank you,
> [[m:user:tsca]]
>
>
I don't understand this non-commercial license restriction either.
There is nothing in the GFDL that prohibits commercial redisitribution
of content. The only thing that it does restrict is exclusive
redistribution agreements by anybody (like the Wikimedia Foundation) to
still yet other parties. If you want to take the Wikipedia content and
publish it onto some CD-ROMs and sell them for $20 a piece, you are free
to do that. You are also welcome to make your own website with the
content and put ads or whatever you want... as long as you comply with
the terms of the GFDL (with all of its inviolate portions and whatnot).
You can even publish a set of hardcover books with wikipedia content.
You just have to allow people who get the content from you do be able
to do the same thing with no further restrictions.
Not all "free" licenses are this way, I admit, and there is a certain
group within the free content community that simply doesn't want
commercial licensing. The GFDL does not provide for that sort of
protection, and I would like to know what "Wikimedia lawyers" were
giving this sort of incredibly wrong advise. In addition, I don't know
what sort of scam any admin would be getting involved with that would
give him/her any more authority than is given to anybody else. And it
is indeed a scam for an admin to claim that they could even enter into
any sort of contract over content for anything other than what they
personally have contributed to any Wikimedia projects.
That is the crucial detail you have to remember. If you are the
originator of content, you can "relicense" what you have done to any
other licensing agreement... even EULA's like from Microsoft or
Prentiss-Hall. But that is limited to only what you have personally
contributed, and if it is already in the Wikipedia (for example) the
rest of us still can do whatever is legal according to the GFDL.
--
Robert Scott Horning
218 Sunstone Circle
Logan, UT 84321
(435) 753-3330
robert_horning(a)netzero.net