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

[luke brandt]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> luke brandt schreef:
>> .. .......    
>> 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

Hi again,

My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
appeared to be 'no.' I'm not sure if there have been any changes since
that time, but your response to my question read as follows:

"The GFDL is the license that was available at the beginning unlike some
of what would now be the more obvious. I am sure the GFDL would not be
chosen when we were to chose a license for Wikipedia at this moment. The
GFDL is imho not really suited for much of the data that we have. It was
designed to license manuals to go with software."

So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on
what the FSF says, or anyone else. I guess there are many contradictions
in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with
them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e.
those closest to the project concerned. The Foundation should only
become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason,
certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy. We have a template,
that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all,
and that is a most empowering ideal. - Thanks, luke