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