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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> > We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the
> > other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted
> > to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises
> > our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
>
> Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their
> ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow
> them to do so?

I see a lot of handwaving in this regard, but I don't see a lot of
solid argument.
What content are we going to get under ND which we can't get under a
free license?

> Also, does this statement mean that you are of the
> opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in
> any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?

I have a three part reply:

First, the argument I posted about english Wikipedia is not entirely
my own.  Personally, I'd prefer the quality loss to liberate ourselves
entirely from the licensing complexities of non-free, and even
non-wikipedian, created content.  That said, until we get control over
what is being uploaded .. it's  moot point.   But yes, I do believe
that the exclusion of excerpts of copyrighted works reduces the
quality of the encyclopedia... and the DE editors appear to agree
through their actions.

Secondly, de wiki *does* contain fair use images, although not that
many. They are mistakenly (or dishonestly) mislabled as public domain.
 PD tagged content on enwiki which claims to have come from DE wiki is
a red flag, unless it is wikipedian created it is usually copyvio.

Finally, DE wiki exists in a different market place than enwiki.
Perhaps things are different there, but here we have encarta and other
electronic encyclopedias with extensive collections of licensed
content. Users are often surprised by our unwillingness to accept
content, when the Enwiki behavior is quite permissive compared to
dewiki.

> As for texts that actually are under an ND license and that people
> would want on Wikisource: What about the GNU/FDL license itself?
> Surely, even if Wikimedia itself were under a different license, the
> text of the license would be suitable to put on Wikisource? Yet, the
> license of the license reads:
>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>
> ND, in other words.

Our current distribution of it is as metacontent, not a part of our
projects. The wikimedia logos are also unfree.

And no, I don't see any problem with this... I'm not waging a holy war
against unfree content. We've drawn a bright line which declares the
purposes of the projects, and it makes sense to  uphold those
purposes.