[Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing

[Robert Rohde]

On Nov 22, 2007 1:16 AM, Tim 'avatar' Bartel <wikipedia at computerkultur.org>
wrote:

> <snip>

Like I wrote in another post, the main problem is in my opinion that on
> one hand 'we' tell people, that the GFDL avoids or massively handicaps
> the commercial reuse in print (to convince them to 'give us' their
> content), while on the other hand we try to ease up reuse of our
> content. While our mission clearly strives to the latter, I'm pretty
> sure we will get problems with the people who believed in the further
> argument.
>
>

Some of us, myself included, believe that commercial reuse SHOULD BE
burdensome.  Or more specifically, if a commercial publisher is going to
profit on the back of content they didn't create and with no funds going to
the authors, then it should be dreadfully obvious that the content in
question is free content, and not the run-of-the-mill restricted content
that they always publish.  In some ways the GFDL is overboard in that regard
(i.e. you don't need a long license document for a single image), but I
believe publishers should be burdened with making their use of free content
clearly identified.

Also, I realize that not everyone feels the same way about being burdensome.

-Robert Rohde