On 9/19/06, Delirium delirium@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.
- 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.