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

[Gerard Meijssen]

luke brandt schreef:
> 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
Hoi,
Given the title of this thread I would welcome it when the Wikimedia 
Foundation board is more expressive about the ND not being permitted. My 
understanding of there being no explicit preferred license is that as 
long as the license permits what is essential to being able to take the 
whole of the project and do things with it is not endangered, any 
license if fine. A license with NC is therefore not acceptable.
Thanks,
    GerardM