Daniel Mayer wrote:
Public domain is /not/ a license. It is the lack of a license.
this is a prime example of youknowwhatimean
And then Encarta gets a huge free update by importing all our work into their encyclopedia and then /not/ allowing us, or anybody else for that matter, to use their improvements as a basis to further improve the text. The whole cycle of positive feedback gets sucked dry by parasites who take our text and enslaves it under a proprietary license. Copyleft protects the freedom of the content itself.
here lies our difference in thinking. to me that would be OK. let encarta use my work if they want, let brittannica, let anyone use it.. it just doesnt bother me much, after all, much of wikipedia came from the public domain.
What i figure is this, people who don't want to share their work, wont share it anyways, they'll just waste man hours creating a new original which they can not-share.. people who cant to contribute would do it anyways.
Lightning