On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 08:58, Axel Boldt wrote:
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
It might, if this were a project that fights against intellectual property rights. It isn't. It's a project that fights *for* intellectual property rights *for everyone*.
... as long as it is understood that "everyone" is defined as "everyone who is able and willing to use a license compatible with GFDL". Those who for various reasons use one of the couple dozen incompatible open content licenses are granted by us only a single right: the right to read. That's exactly what they get from encyclopedia.com as well.
Nonsense. They have the right to use and reuse and redistribute and modify and rerelease the GFDL content _under the GFDL license_. They just can't rerelease it _under a different license_. This is *the whole point* of using such a license -- ensuring that those rights continue to be protected by requiring the same license terms to be used for redistribution.
This doesn't hurt people who use other licenses for other works -- as you may or may not be aware, one isn't required to use the same license for everything one does in life. :)
It may "hurt" people who have decided to use YAOCL and want to integrate free content into another work without providing the same set of protections that allowed them to get it. Well sorry, bub, but that's the point. If we dilute the protections by letting any old license be used, you can expect a read-only embraced & extended version of Wikipedia peppered with material that's uncopyable under any license. If that's your idea of freedom, I suppose that prisoners are "free" to try to escape from prison at any time. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)