On 6/3/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
It is nice to see impressive terms used like "cost benefit analysis"
only to find that there has been no such thing.
Glad to please.
It is also nice to
know that we all can individually sue them bastards.
Is that sarcastic?
It is also nice to know that the WMF does not need to
care when the
Freedom is taken away from what used to be Free content.
No such thing is happening.
If anything
it is easy to argue that the WMF in order to achieve its goals has to
protect the Freedoms that are clearly written as being part of the
aims of the Foundation.
I wouldn't mind it if the Foundation sent troops into China to free
anyone jailed for distributing Wikipedia. But I doubt it's going to
happen.
You might consider it "only" a test case.
But
you forget that by establishing jurisprudence it prevents people
taking increasingly more liberties from the Freedom that the GFDL aims
to protect.
The GFDL aims to protect the freedom to modify and distribute. *You*
are the one recommending that we place a limit on that freedom, not
me.
When this jurisprudence becomes anchored in the
Chinese
legal system it is only the country with the highest number of
people.. apparantly that is not really relevant.
Sure it is. If China didn't have the highest number of people sending
in troops to free anyone jailed for distributing Wikipedia might be a
more reasonable option.
Please do not use big terms that have meaning next
time.
OK. You too. Especially terms like "Freedom".
Thanks,
GerardM
You're welcome,
Anthony