Lightning wrote:
I really wish wikipedia had used the public domain as a license.
Public domain is /not/ a license. It is the lack of a license.
therefore everything would be able to be used
everywhere.
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.
Information is already free; with copyleft we are ensuring that it's presentation will also be free.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
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
--- Lightning lightning@chaos-productions.com wrote:
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.
I wold not like encarta or any other for-profit org to use the edits I have made. If they want me to edit their encyclodedia, I'm $50/hr.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Christopher Mahan wrote:
I wold not like encarta or any other for-profit org to use the edits I have made. If they want me to edit their encyclodedia, I'm $50/hr.
Microsoft, Brittanica, etc are free to use anything you've contributed to Wikipedia without paying you a dime -- so long as they abide by the terms of the license.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Christopher Mahan wrote:
I wold not like encarta or any other for-profit org to use the edits I have made. If they want me to edit their encyclodedia, I'm $50/hr.
Microsoft, Brittanica, etc are free to use anything you've contributed to Wikipedia without paying you a dime -- so long as they abide by the terms of the license.
Yup. And thanks to the license, we have the right to copy it right back to Wikipedia -- so we work for free, AND they've worked for free!
Again, this is a policy discussion better suited to another list. Let's keep this one technical.
Christopher Mahan wrote:
I wold not like encarta or any other for-profit org to use the edits I have made. If they want me to edit their encyclodedia, I'm $50/hr.
Well, under the GNU FDL and the principles of freedom espoused by GNU, they can use the edits you have made. As for me, I *want* for-profit entities to use our encyclopedia -- one fond hope is that after we get to a 1.0 release (which will be prepped by us specifically for ease of use by publishers) the market will be flooded by for-profit printers all over the world.
The key concept here is not 'profit' versus 'non-profit', but rather 'proprietary' versus '(GNU) free'.
--Jimbo
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org