Forwarded by permission from the Wikimedia Advisory Board list.
--Mike
Begin forwarded message:
From: Wayne Mackintosh wmackintosh@col.org Date: December 2, 2007 1:00:25 PM EST To: advisory@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Advisory Board] License update resolution Reply-To: advisory@lists.wikimedia.org
This is an important debate and I am very pleased to see this filtering through into our Advisory Board list.
The WMF is one of but a few organisations that has clearly defined what it means by "free" in its licensing policy. We have a clear definition of its meaning in our licensing policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) underpinned by the principles of the Free Cultural Works definition (http://freedomdefined.org/Definition )
Apart from being the largest encyclopedia in the history of human kind <smile> - WMF has established a global leadership role by defining what we mean by free content, but more importantly the values which underpin it. Free content is different from free software. It has unique characteristics which are more than adequately covered in the Free Cultural Works definition. (As an international agency - COL's small free content initiative subscribes to the free cultural works definition).
Sadly the free knowledge community is facing a difficult challenge in our collective history. We are at risk of fuelling factions within the free knowledge community that push their particular "brand" of free content license at the expense of the greater vision of free knowledge for all. I've also seen calls for a new license for the education sector -- crazy.
It is ludicrous that in this day an age - free content content using License A cannot legally be mixed with Free Content under License B and then released as a modified work under License B. Sure there are justifiable historical reasons for this situation. This is why WMF must show bold and decisive leadership in uniting the free knowledge movement together. We cannot afford to fuel license factions at the risk of realising the vision of free knowledge for all. That said - resolving this challenge must be founded on the essential freedoms.
The evolution of free content license factions (in my view) will stun the growth of free knowledge and rob us of our most powerful lever -- the fact that digital knowledge is infinitely scalable.
I agree with Mako -- these issues must be determined by the real freedom issues rather than idiosyncrasies. For example, the seductive allure to argue our position from the perspective of commercial versus non-commercial motivations, while tempting and emotionally powerful, is risky because this will erode the principled foundations on which we draw our meaning of freedom. For example, within our projects - WikiNews already uses a CC Attribution license (i.e. without the viral clause). So we have a double president - using two brands of license among our projects and one project without a copyleft clause. Fortunately this situation can be defended drawing on the foundations of the essential freedoms.
It is unfortunate how interpretations of this Board resolution have filtered through the popular digital media ..;-(. But hey, tall trees like Wikipedia do catch a lot of wind and you can't unring a bell <smile>.
The Board volunteers will bear the brunt of managing the traffic this will generate. I commend the Board's dedication and commitment to the vision of free knowledge. Hang in their - we will be a better world will be a better place for your efforts!
If there is anyway I can assist from the outside as an Advisory Board member in the educational perspectives around free content licensing. Feel free to ask.
Cheers Wayne
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 12:36 +0100, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
<quote who="Mike Godwin" date="Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 10:31:24PM -0500">
At any rate, my own view is wholly supportive of FSF, GPL, and
GDFL,
even though I also favor harmonization of GFDL with CC-BY-SA
somewhere
down the road.
Absolutely. This is my position as well. But in order to do that, it's important we successfully determine between the real freedom issues and the things that are annoying or merely idiosyncratic. Unless we establish that there are no fundamental differences from a principled position, migration between these license would be irresponsible.
Regards, Mako
Advisory mailing list Advisory@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory
Advisory mailing list Advisory@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org