Bryan Derksen wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any
nonfree content not
under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place
anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an
image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of
fundamentalism.
I don't want to endorse the charge of "fundamentalism," which seems a
bit harsh to me. But I did want to support the idea that it is one
thing to say that our encyclopedic and other *works* need to be freely
licensed because that's what we are here for, and another thing to say
that absolutely everything in every place has to be freely licensed.