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

[Lars Aronsson]

luke brandt wrote:

> 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.

It is quite embarrassing to think that you would be uneducated 
about these definitions and the history of Wikipedia.  Surely this 
is covered in the FAQs.

You can wish for any license you want, and then all you need is to 
invent a time machine to go back to 2001 and implement your ideas.

If you are talking about a completely new project, not Wikipedia, 
then you can pick any license you want.

Here is one rationale for the stand on "non-commercial" licenses.
I suppose you know the saying "Give a man a fish; you have fed him 
for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a 
lifetime".  Free software projects such as Linux and free contents 
projects such as Wikipedia are recipies for making your own 
fishing rod, aiming to give the fish-catcher the most freedom.  
What if you use it to catch some fish?  Are you allowed to sell 
that?  Or does your fishing rod come with a limiting clause that 
says you can only use this tool for Non-Commercial (NC) purposes?  
Which kind of license gives you the most freedom?

> 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?

If I give my time to improve this free recipy for making fishing 
rods, why should I want to impose an NC license on it?  Who is 
harmed by "exploitation", except for the fish?


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se