On Oct 7, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:59:58 -0700 "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But this sort of permission is inadequate for us. We need a free license.
I don't agree. People should have the possibility to take a Wikipedia article, change it, and publish it either commercially or non-commercially. What we need is that people have the right to do _that_. I have no problems with images that are not allowed to be sold as is, as long as it is allowed to sell a book or encyclopedia that contains those articles.
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
At which point the article is no longer open source, because someone else owns part of the source that does not travel with the article, and the owner of the images can precent wikimedia from selling the exact product, or at any future time decide to unilaterally alter the license and require payment.
Proprietary source is a seductive trap, and proprietary vendors will give away for free for a while, and then, once you are locked in - because the open source solutions are killed off - raise prices to monopoly levels. Jimbo is absolutely on the money: don't take the proprietary crack, stay clean and sober on this one.