[Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing
rarohde at gmail.com
Thu Nov 22 22:11:43 UTC 2007
On Nov 22, 2007 1:22 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Robert Rohde wrote:
> > 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
> > 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
> > (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
> > clearly identified.
> > Also, I realize that not everyone feels the same way about being
> I have no problem with commercial reuse. In a way it seems to me that
> NC licences are counterproductive. We want the viral nature of the
> licence to infect the commercial sites.
Actually, I would be careful about this language. I don't want them
"infected". If they choose to embrace GFDL / CC-SA of their own free will,
then fine. But free content shouldn't be a disease that ambushes
unsuspecting publishers. To that end, being very clear about the
implications of these licenses is important.
Frankly calling it "free content" actually feels like a misnomer when using
this "free" material comes with a heavy burden that can hypothetical deprive
people of income from their own work.
More information about the foundation-l