On 9/19/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Although your comment is in a rather impolite tone, I
suppose I'll reply
anyway.
It's rather impolite of you to make sweeping and inaccurate
generalizations. There are people here who may not know that you were
full of crap.
If we had to follow the intersection of copyright
laws, we could not
distribute a number of things we currently distribute on various of our
projects:
Yes. No argument that we currently distribute works that we could not
distribute if we attempted to follow all laws, but your claim was that
the project would fail because "nearly nothing is permissible to
distribute" under a policy of expansive conformance.
1. Modern mechanical reproductions of out-of-copyright
artworks, since
these are only unprotected by copyright in the subset of countries that
have _Bridgeman_-like case law
A nit: only in cases where the mechanical reproducer tries to claim a
non-free copyright.
[snip]
The list goes on extensively. To get an idea of what
would need to be
deleted if we respected the intersection of copyright laws, find every
Commons copyright tag with a proviso such as "This may not apply in
countries such as [x, y, z]".
Yes, its a lot of material but it's far less than all.
In particual content *we* create is not copyright encoumbered. Since
our text is mostly submitter authored there is no reason to believe
that our project would fail if our images had to be submitter authored
as well.