[Commons-l] justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

[Tim 'avatar' Bartel]

Hi Wikipedians,

Brianna Laugher schrieb am 03.04.2006 13:16:
> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this? I
> understand it and accept it, but I find it hard to respond to users
> who say, "Silly me, I thought we were building an encyclopedia here"
> and think that "educational/non-commercial purposes only" should be
> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
> weak. As does "We also building a totally free stock photography
> database". It's not hard to feel gypped when we should be serving WM
> projects first and foremost (and at the moment I doubt there's much
> outside use, but it's hard to tell).
> 
> So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user
> see why this requirement is necessary?

Erik wrote a good statement about NC licensing, which can be found here:
http://www.intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC

Bye, Tim.

-- 
"Von welchem Tag bist Du?" fragte ich, um mich zu vergewissern [...]
"Der vom Donnerstag" stoehnte er.
Das war eigenartig. Sollte ich trotz allem noch der vom Mittwoch sein?
                                         Stanislaw Lem, 7. Reise, 1971

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060403/69710b78/attachment.pgp