On Oct 7, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:59:58 -0700 "Jimmy (Jimbo)
But this sort of permission is inadequate for us.
We need a free
I don't agree. People should have the possibility to take a Wikipedia
article, change it, and publish it either commercially or
non-commercially. What we need is that people have the right to do
_that_. I have no problems with images that are not allowed to be sold
as is, as long as it is allowed to sell a book or encyclopedia that
contains those articles.
Wikipedia-l mailing list
At which point the article is no longer open source, because someone
else owns part of the source that does not travel with the article, and
the owner of the images can precent wikimedia from selling the exact
product, or at any future time decide to unilaterally alter the license
and require payment.
Proprietary source is a seductive trap, and proprietary vendors will
give away for free for a while, and then, once you are locked in -
because the open source solutions are killed off - raise prices to
monopoly levels. Jimbo is absolutely on the money: don't take the
proprietary crack, stay clean and sober on this one.