On 07/23/12 11:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Ray Saintonge, 24/07/2012 02:27:
On 07/18/12 12:01 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Ray Saintonge, 04/12/2011 02:27:
For ourselves, it would make sense to be careful. In the broader scheme of things the situation bears watching. Do the authors of the articles even give a damn? I suspect that few if any with standing will ever complain. Those few can easily be accommodated. It makes one wonder about the benefit to being purists about respecting copyrights.
We put a way stronger stress on the "free" part indeed. archive.org archives the whole internet and all sorts of stuff which are obviously copyrighted, but the pseudo-delete ("dark" and keep in their system for the future) any time an author requests to do so even if without legitimate reason. Very few do.
Another thing to keep in mind is that "free" is also a verb. We generate more freedom by giving an opportunity for the owners of older rights to express themselves, or allow the rights to lapse by doing nothing. Contrast this with maintaining protections out of fear.
Maybe, but this is either something I disagree with or a characteristic of English that I don't like. Let's say we put a stress on the "copyleft" part of the job then.
In English we already had to make the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech".
"Copyleft, as I understand it, in the SA part of the Creative Commons licences. It requires those who use work that is under a copyleft licence to license the results under the same licence.
When the copyright status of a work is unclear, as with an orphan work, we have no right to attach any licences at all, anymore than on PD works. It is with these works of uncertain status that I am more concerned. Doing so outside of the WMF umbrella gives a lot more flexibility. It allows steps that will make those works free.
One of my complaints about the Unz site is that it forbids reproduction of any of its contents, including material that is clearly in the public domain.
Ray