Not true. *if* we would allow NC, I bet it will be possible to persue a lot of institutions to give their images, paintings, texts etc away under the NC. So it does have a huge potential, also for pictures with on the short term no free equivalent. But that is not what this discussion should be about imho. I dont think we should be talking about what images we would like to use, i think we should talk about what we are *allowed* (legally) to use. And as I said already quite a while before, that is mostly a case for license-experts, copyright-experts, the foundation and their willingness to face a potential sue, and maybe as well the free software foundtaion, the writer of the GNU Free Documentation License. *If* it would be allowed by all those, it is time for us as community or maybe as every community by itself, to choose what licenses we *want* to use, taking into account what the possible consequenses are and what the costs to our ideals are. The first is more a fact, that we have to find out, and let some people do research to, the second is more an opinion. For the first I would suggest to ask experts to find this out, to ask the foundation to take a stand on this issue, to ask the FSF advice, and see whether it is _allowed_ or not. For the second question I would suggest to have a more structured and broad discussion, possibly on meta, where the discussion could be split into different topics, and the arguments can be collected in a way that one can keep oversight. Because who exactly is benefitting from this very discussion? We have very great texts here, but the problem is that probably only a small group reads this (due to the amount of text) and those in this group already took a stand, and wont be persuaded anymore. It makes little sense that way :) Please let someone set up a structured discussion on meta, so it will be easier to follow, and it will less be making people to quit foundation-l due to the amount of messages in their inbox (not everybody has gmail). I myself would prefer first _*at least*_ a guideline of the foundation, stating what the boundaries are within which we can move. Lodewijk 2007/1/19, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:

geni wrote: Yes, except that I don't see it as unhelpful. At the same time I do not believe that we should be posting indisputably protected random material for the sole purpose of getting a reaction from those we already know will react adversely. That would be a wilfull violation. Talking about the images that we want is the path to talking about what is allowed. If we don't want the image in the first place it doesn't matter if it's allowed. Talking about what is allowed in an empirical vacuum is a clear path to unrealistic answers. Adopting a common license as a basis to build from is a sensible decision. (Wikinews already uses a different licence from everyone else.) I think that this still allows projects some variation in how the licence will be interpreted. In dealing with fair use, AFAIK the licences themselves are silent on the matter. Any kind of dominance on the Board has its downside, whether it's dominance of a language (like English), or political entity (like the United States or the European Union). Ec

On 1/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Then youtube and flickr are that way. For the time being this project will continue to care about copyright to an extent greater than following DMCA requirements. On the part of the uploader yes. Could you clarify your point here. -- geni

On 1/20/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: [[Irony]] You basicaly suggested following their copyright policy. That would be aa strawman. If we took that aproach commons would be rather less full. En.Wikipedia has 692,119 media files. There is nothing theoretical. I think people sueing us our our uploaders will not be talking about hypothetical cases. -- geni