Marco Krohn wrote:
What I don't agree with is the focus or better the change of focus that is taking place. Our top priority shouldn't be to become the best "encyclopedia"--we should become the best "free encyclopedia".
Marco,
I don't think that's what's going on. If anything, our change of focus is *towards* a greater emphasis on freedom, not less. Maybe you haven't been following the discussions closely? :-)
In the past, we've been lax about having things on the site that have been licensed for the exclusive use of wikipedia, or for "noncommercial" use, etc. We've also made extensive use of "fair use", well within the bounds of what a nonprofit educational organization can do, but probably too extensive given our goals for re-use.
The current discussion is all about changing that to ensure that we are free.
As far as I can tell, everyone shares that goal. The only real questions have to do with borderline cases and where to draw the line. Or perhaps I should say "how" to draw the line as opposed to "where", since our agreed upon procedures will drive the outcomes.
The rest of what you said, I agree with completely, even while acknowledging Erik's point that for some types of work, a nearly free (all except derivs) license is the best that can be hoped for, and that in certain exceptional cases, we might decide to accept that.
But I think that Erik and I agree that such a situation is less desirable than a fully freely licensed contribution.
--Jimbo