[WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

[Fastfission]

On 11/28/05, Mike Finucane <mike_finucane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In answer to that; I can only say that this seems to be the very
> antithesis of what I thought Wikipedia to be; people providing free
> material, for a free resource.

In English there are (at least) two meanings of the word "free", what
Stallman distinguishes "free as in freedom" versus "free as in beer".
The former, when applied to intellectual property, is a radical
notion. The latter is a tired story we all know well.

The "free" in Wikipedia's "Free Encyclopedia" refers primarily to the
former. The fact that it is also the latter is almost inconsequential
(though in practical operations, it is of course entirely essential).

True freedom, in an intellectual property sense, gives you the ability
to make a buck off of something. Shakespeare's works are "free" in
that sense because their copyright has expired, so any shmoe on the
street can publish his own edition of "Hamlet", or can create a movie
version of "Hamlet", or can perform "Hamlet" on a street corner for a
few stray bucks. That's the kind of "free" we are talking about, here.

There's no reason that intellectual property freedom has to be opposed
to profits. Its calling is a higher one -- a freer culture. If
somebody can make a living off of that, then more power to them. Sure,
there will be some slimey abuses -- after all, let's not forget how
Kenneth Branagh butchered the Bard! But that's life, and in the end,
that ends up being pretty inconsequential on the whole.

FF