Gerard Meijssen wrote: 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

Gerard Meijssen wrote: 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

Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hi again, My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then appeared to be 'no.' I'm not sure if there have been any changes since that time, but your response to my question read as follows: "The GFDL is the license that was available at the beginning unlike some of what would now be the more obvious. I am sure the GFDL would not be chosen when we were to chose a license for Wikipedia at this moment. The GFDL is imho not really suited for much of the data that we have. It was designed to license manuals to go with software." So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on what the FSF says, or anyone else. I guess there are many contradictions in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e. those closest to the project concerned. The Foundation should only become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason, certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy. We have a template, that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all, and that is a most empowering ideal. - Thanks, luke

On 1/14/07, luke brandt <shojokid(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not exactly: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing with these issues than we do. Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive knowlage of international and national copyright law and an understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement. The foundation has historicaly rejected this position. NC fails in that respect .As does DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright and at least some of CC's sampling licenses. -- geni

geni wrote: Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was posted 18 months previously. It is still true that the answer to my question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose from, or we could formulate a custom one. Now the current meeting could maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted..... On Jimmy Wales's general position regarding the GFDL, see this discussion thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_living_people#Excepti… I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's right to do. We are in a unique situation. Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking particularly about China and how things are developing there. Be more specific, please. China I suppose comes to mind as an example where judicious involvement may help carry the project forward. Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an objective..this link may be of use: http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm Thanks, luke

--- luke brandt <shojokid(a)gmail.com> wrote: Free means free to do just about anything you want with the material so long as proper credit is given and those modifications are given the same freedoms. Even though images can be considered separate works on the web, having non-free/NC ones in an article would prevent that article's use in a commercial product. And the freedom granted in the GFDL *specifically* mentions the freedom to use GFDLd material commercially. So the use of NC images goes against the spirit if not the letter of the FDL. Also, there is also at least some doubt as to whether images can, in a legal sense (again, IANAL), in fact be considered separate works in all circumstances from text. So even though our non-profit status may allow us to use NC image, others who use our content for commercial purposes would need to constantly remove non-free images. And *that* makes it needlessly difficult for others to use and enjoy our work. That is why the foundation has a strict policy against using any image or other media that has non-free aspects. I'm sorry, but this policy is set in stone and will not change; there is a constant open season on NC and other non-free images. No one wiki community can decide otherwise and any wheel war that results will invariably favor the admins who are following this policy and sanction those that are actively using their admin powers to fight against it. -- mav ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

luke brandt schreef: Hoi, When I am hungry and someone offers me a fish, and insists on telling me a long winded story with what I can and cannot do with the fish, I will wait and salivate from hunger. I will say thank you .. and think: "what an arrogant prick".. he knows I am hungry .. I want to grill, cook it with herbs and butter.. I am HUNGRY why does he not allow me to go home and cook !! Thanks, GerardM

Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hi Gerard, You'll know that Eric intended to raise the question of NC at the current meeting, and yes I'm well aware of the implications of a decision on the matter. Of course I am. Maybe the Board will see sense, maybe it won't :) - Best wishes, luke

On 14/01/07, luke brandt <shojokid(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think it's clear the answer to your question is "No. Just no." - d.

luke brandt wrote: Lest you actually try this, it remains a pointless theory. You could just as well say "what would happen if pigs could fly". So to get from theory to reality, I suggest you make a try. Take a copy of Wikipedia's contents and release it on your own website under another license that you think is appropriate. Go ahead. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

The reply suggests that advertising on a website disqualifies it from being non-commercial use. One affect of that policy is that only people who can afford to completely fund their site without advertising support may reuse the content. The argument that employing a share-alike license destroys commercial viability is also dubious.

Gerard Meijssen wrote: There's a difference when you want to sell it instead of eat it. If you live in a landlocked country where fish is not normally eaten you may even think that it stinks and you cannot possibly hold it down in your stomach. You may know someone else who is willing to take your fish intrade for "real food". Where does that put you if this is not allowed by the donor? Ec