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

[Birgitte SB]

--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/1/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.
> 
> I think this point of Erik's is the most important.
> 
> The reason that ND content should not be broadly
> accepted on any
> Wikimedia project is that the only cases where we
> are able to obtain
> an ND grant are cases where we also have a high
> probaiblity of getting
> a free grant.
> 
> Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore
> free content than
> content you can use but not distribute.  Both are
> without cost, both
> deny you what would be considered natural rights
> without copyright,
> and both go far beyond the limited restrictions
> required to keep
> content free and far beyond what is needed to avoid
> people being
> confused by content degraded by later editors.
> 
> When we accept kinda-free works it is at the cost of
> actually free works.
> 
> There are many sites out there which are happy to
> distribute
> free-of-cost content, Wikimedia doesn't need to yet
> another.
> 
> If someone can really make the case that there are
> works which could
> never be free but can instead be ND, then make it...
> And expect the
> counter argument "But what if I went to the
> copyright holder and
> overed him $100,000 USD to free his work"?  Because
> thats a perfectly
> valid counter argument.
> 

The works I see us dealing with here are religous
works, goverment works, and manifestos of political
groups etc.  These sorts of works forbid modifiction
because the authors do not want to be misrepresented
not because they want to profit from the work.  This
situation is not comparable to un-free works on
Wikipedia.  It does not prevent free works from being
created in the same way at all.  Excluding these works
will not make anything more free.  I am not putting ND
works on the same footing as PD works; the works
themselves are not comparable.  This is not like a
picture of a butterfly.  It is not the that ND work is
better quality than some PD work; each work is unique.
 If we realy did have a high probability of getting a
free license on these works I would agree with you but
I so not belive it is possible.  I should really come
up with some concrete examples before continuing this
which will require some research, but I am for now
quite unconvinced.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com