[Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet

[Gerard Meijssen]

luke brandt schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>   
>> luke brandt schreef:
>>     
>>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> luke brandt schreef:
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and
>>>>> imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass
>>>>> the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore
>>>>> hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting
>>>>> its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I 
>>>> think you are completely wrong in this.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>      GerardM
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Hi Gerard,
>>> I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
>>> other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
>>> too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
>>> read Eric's arguments:
>>>
>>> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
>>>
>>> as well as this reply:
>>>
>>> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>>>
>>> and I'd be interested to know your view.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> luke
>>>       
>> Hoi,
>> It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under 
>> the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material 
>> in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the 
>> GFDL. Elementary.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>     
>
> err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
> question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free'
> license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
> for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
> rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
> would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
> (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
Hoi,
Let us accept that the license of the Wikipedia projects is the GFDL. 
The GFDL, therefore the FSF has a definition for what is meant by free. 
You deny the project and the users of its content this freedom by 
restricting things further than this.

Rejecting commercial exploitation of our content is detrimental to our 
cause. Our cause is to bring knowledge to the people. If a commercial 
party makes this happen, they are a boon to our cause. Your point has, 
in an environment where a license has been chosen to allow for, this no 
merit. In an other project, you may be absolutely right, however the 
notion of NC sabotages the intentions of GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa 
environments (maybe some other environments as well).
Thanks,
     GerardM