I agree with all of Michael's analysis. I would like to underscore
out that "educational" does not necessarily mean "non-commercial".
There are many educational, religious or cultural institutions that
operate in the "commercial realm" and in fact, under the U.S.
trademark law, the term of art "use in commerce" is not limited
to sale of goods, but can also be services. Here is an example
of my own alma mater and the protection it has on its name
They also are protected from allowing anyone else from selling
educational services under their name:
Jimbo was very wise to create a licensing scheme that allowed these
kinds of uses of Wikipedia content while preserving the moral rights
of creators, which is not protected under US law (even though it is a
signatory to the Berne Convention) except for certain types of
visual art works; as we know American IP law is obsessed with
protecting the "commerical" exploitation of a work, and not with
the more philosophical "moral rights" concepts of IP that lead creators
and IP rights pioneers like Victor Hugo to stress the importance of
these "non-economic" rights.
Alex T. Roshuk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snow" <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
| Framing the issue this way assumes that these categories are distinct.
| That assumption is misleading and, especially in the context of our
| philosophical commitments on licensing issues, not one we can operate
| with. Their concession to commercial use recognizes that education and
| information can be commercial products. But what about, for example,
| using this material to advertise an educational product? This is
| territory where it isn't feasible to bless some approaches and cordon
| off others, at least not without detailed agreements spelling out what
| is and isn't permissible. Such things quickly become too complicated for
| our own contributors, to say nothing of anyone downstream who wants to
| reuse it.
| --Michael Snow
| foundation-l mailing list