[Foundation-l] Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies

[luke brandt]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 2/10/07, Brianna Laugher wrote:
>> On 10/02/07, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> The current draft resolution makes reference to the "Definition of
>>> Free Cultural Works" for the purpose of identifying free licenses:
>>> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
>>>
>>> This would help to separate the process from any specific Wikimedia
>>> project.
>>
>> which was basically written by you... so this becomes 'ask Erik's
>> interpretation' :)
>
> The main text was co-authored by Benjamin Mako Hill. You have no idea
> how many emails and conversations with Richard Stallman and Lawrence
> Lessig were required to get to the point where we are now. The
> definition was also reviewed and improved with the feedback of the
> moderator team, which includes Angela Beesley, Mia Garlick from
> Creative Commons, and Elizabeth Stark from freeculture.org.
>

Hey guys,

There's been a lot of info to digest over the past couple of days, but
one thing I've always wondered about is the definition of 'freedom'
being used by Erik and others. I just looked at Benjamin's blog entry here:-

http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20070104-00

and noted these words: "... A free culture is not a culture without
property; it is not a culture in which artists don't get paid. A culture
without property, or in which creators can't get paid is anarchy, not
freedom. ..." quoted seemingly with approval, which strike me as
displaying an attitude of which the Adam Smith Institute -
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/ - would heartily approve. Not that
there's anything necessarily right or wrong with that, or Lawrence
Lessig's characterization of 'anarchy'... it's just that we need to look
very carefully at the assumptions being made in the terminology
employed, so we know where the conclusions come from. just my 2 cents.
Take care - luke