[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

[Erik Moeller]

On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Please pay me the compliment of believing what I say,

I am not disputing your comments, I am simply pointing out the
contradiction to the way Wikisource defines itself. It is clear that
ND and NC materials have slipped through the cracks in a few projects
and languages.

> however it stretches your credulity or however you
> would like to interpret the Main Page.  Here is a link
> to most recent dissucion which took place on the most
> active and prominent page on enWS.  Not single person
> spoke out against accepting the ND license.
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Non_commercial_texts

What I see is a single comment from you on this matter, and a single
response to that. This is not the broad discussion about these issues
which we need.

> When you have managed to limit fair use materials, I
> will examine the limits and re-evaluate my opiion.
> Currently enWP has pretty much any fair use material
> they can get away with.

The situation has much improved in recent years (though the overall
quantity of materials uploaded has grown, of course). Fair use images
are quickly deleted when orphaned, and the policy that they can be
replaced even with inferior free versions seems to be accepted now
(this was not always the case). We have a well-defined list of
acceptable circumstances of fair use.

Most importantly, fair use material is subject to very different
conditions than other content, and governed by its own policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use

It is this distinction between two classes of content which is
essential. You, on the other hand, want to put ND content on equal
footing with other materials. This erodes the distinction, reduces the
incentive to contribute free content, and contradicts the definition
and mission of Wikisource.

Erik