[Foundation-l] Rethinking brands
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Fri May 11 13:45:19 UTC 2007
On 5/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You ring a bell here. From time to time, we hear rumors of fears that
> > "Wikipedia could become the main source of information" - a sort of
> > Google empire of knowledge. With hints of World Domination.
> BTW - this is one reason, when the press call trying to stir up a
> fight between us and Citizendium, I always say they're a good thing
> because more freely-reusable content is good, they validate the model
> and encouraging free content is something we're absolutely for.
> (I know they still haven't picked their actual license. If they pick
> one that *isn't* a proper free content licence ... well.)
I think it is mistaken to think that an encyclopaedia that did not go
for GFDL could not survive... Look at the Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy. To the content producers the big thing with wikipedia is
that we are open access, not that we are GFDL. Well guess what,
Stanford is open access but completely copyright, not left.
> Has anyone approached Scholarpedia about free content licensing, by
> the way? They wouldn't need to change a single thing about the
> Scholarpedia model - just require new works to be free content.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
More information about the foundation-l