On 6/3/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is nice to see impressive terms used like "cost benefit analysis" only to find that there has been no such thing.
Glad to please.
It is also nice to know that we all can individually sue them bastards.
Is that sarcastic?
It is also nice to know that the WMF does not need to care when the Freedom is taken away from what used to be Free content.
No such thing is happening.
If anything it is easy to argue that the WMF in order to achieve its goals has to protect the Freedoms that are clearly written as being part of the aims of the Foundation.
I wouldn't mind it if the Foundation sent troops into China to free anyone jailed for distributing Wikipedia. But I doubt it's going to happen.
You might consider it "only" a test case. But you forget that by establishing jurisprudence it prevents people taking increasingly more liberties from the Freedom that the GFDL aims to protect.
The GFDL aims to protect the freedom to modify and distribute. *You* are the one recommending that we place a limit on that freedom, not me.
When this jurisprudence becomes anchored in the Chinese legal system it is only the country with the highest number of people.. apparantly that is not really relevant.
Sure it is. If China didn't have the highest number of people sending in troops to free anyone jailed for distributing Wikipedia might be a more reasonable option.
Please do not use big terms that have meaning next time.
OK. You too. Especially terms like "Freedom".
Thanks, GerardM
You're welcome, Anthony