[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 5/2/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation maintains archives of its own mailing
> lists, for example this one.  Is that free contents?  Should I be
> allowed to modify and distribute the record of what you said?

Is it? No.
Could it be? Sure.

I think you're making a fallacious appeal to emotion when you say
"Should I be allowed to modify the record of what you said?"

So, let's get something straight: When you talk about 'modifying the
record of what I said', you're not talking about anything related to
copyright infringement, you're talking about fraud.

No I don't want you to modify the 'record of what I said' because that
would be deceptive. Do I care if you take my words and spread them
widely? No.  Do I care if you alter them and make it clear that they
don't necessarily reflect my views, then spread them widely?  No.

People don't communicate in public forums what they wish to keep
secret.  Yes they sometimes desire limitations, but those are grounded
in ethics, in respect, and in honesty. Copyright is too blunt a tool
to try to achieve those things.

> Suppose Google's big Usenet archive or the site Gmane.org had to
> close down, and the Wikimedia Foundation could take over the
> contents.  That's where I think a CC-ND license could make sense.

Can you explain what you are talking about?
The usenet posts are copyrighted by their posters. Their works are not
licensed under CC-ND.
Do you suggest that we contact all prior usenet posters, both living
and dead, and ask them to replease their works under CC-ND?

> Recently I've been looking into MusicBrainz.org, where the core
> database of CD albums, tracks, and artists is released into the
> public domain ("the product"), but data relating to the user
> community ("the factory") is released under a Creative Commons
> license that only allows non-commercial (NC) use.

Musicbrainz isn't a group commit ed to free content, that their output
is free is as much of a response to the massive abuse of the public
that the CDDB folks committed so many years ago as it is anything
else.

What would be interesting here is not a mention that they license a
certain way, but *why* they license a certain way.

> This makes me wonder if Wikipedia user and talk pages really need
> to be released under exactly the same license as the main article
> namespace.  I don't remember that this was analyzed.  User pages
> were just introduced (in 2002) without talks of licensing.  And I
> don't think anybody discussed the licensing for the mailing list
> archives, which are indeed very close to user page discussions.

When we to start permitting userpages to contain non-free content, I
think that it would be clear at that point that the project had
forgotten it's goals.  Wikimedia websites are not myspace.

If you don't want to distribute your userpage as free content you are
using it for something for which it is not intended.

I'm not sure if it was analyzed at the time, but it's certainly been
analyzed since then.

> This also reminds me of Erik Möller's Kuro5hin posting "Creative
> Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful",
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655
> where some of the reader comments made me realize that there can
> be cases where NC makes sense, and other cases where it is
> harmful.  Maybe the same goes for ND.

> Are we trying to force every foot into the same shoe here?

Name a licensing scheme and there is some situation that someone can
come up with that makes sense...  I don't think that anyone is
claiming otherwise.

A great many licensing schemes, including ND and NC, are not what any
sane person who has considered the issue would consider free licenses.

Wikimedia is dedicate to free content. There are many other
organizations out there which are dedicated to no-cost content. Those
other organizations will likely find NC and ND licenses quite
attactive, while Wikimedia finds them generally unacceptable.  This
isn't trying to force every foot into the same shoe, it's just a
result of having a purpose.

Freedom has tremendous advantages, it also has significant costs.
There is a place in the world for free content. This is what wikimedia
is for, and this is why you get so much objections when you wish to
introduce things which look and smell somewhat free but are not.