"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" daniel@copyleft.no writes:
We should make it as good as possible within as wide a legal framework as possible.
Well, you've cut to the chase here.
When there's tension between these do we go for "good" or do we go for "as wide a legal framework".
I'm on the side of "Good."
"Fair Use" images i) Make articles better ii) Make it harder for future non-educational projects to exploit the "codebase"
IMHO, (i) is an enormous upside, (ii) is a small downside, especially considering that these projects a) don't actually exist yet (and making sacrifices to solve non-existent problems is dumb) b) are already fettered by the many other constraints of the GFDL (i.e. authorship credits, link-backs)
Now, we can be pragmatists, and work toward a really, really good encyclopedia, or we can be dogmatists, and strive toward some abstractly pre-defined definition of "freedom."
I've never cared for dogmatists, and I don't intend to become one now.