[Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing

Robert Rohde 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
> 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.
> 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.
> <snip>

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.

-Robert Rohde

More information about the foundation-l mailing list