Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:

>Andre Engels wrote:

>>Mav wrote:

>>>I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).

>>Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.

>It is just the foundation upon which the free software movement is based.

This is really not true!

The Free Sotware Foundation takes a specific principled stance
that one CAN charge money for free software code and free documentation
(see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>).

>It is also the meaning we have been operating on since day one.

I wasn't here on day one, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't true either.
For as long I've been here (now 2 years), there's always been talk in the air
about making distributions on compact discs or cheap newsprint
and selling them at prices that are quite low -- but still large enough
to recoup the investment in the materials and the printing.
I am confident that Jimbo -- a true believer in capitalism --
is looking forward to the day when distributing Wikimedia content
starts making some far-sighted printing companies a good profit.

>We in fact make our
>content more free by not allowing invariant sections.

Yep!  And if you believe Nathanael Nerode
(see <http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html>),
it is only through doing this that we become free at all. ^_^

>If we are serious about leading a revolution in how content is distributed and
>controlled, then we must continue using the full sense of the word 'free'
>(gratis and libre). Negative feedback loops will not get us there.

I don't see how the «gratis» bit prevents irreversible forks.
On the other hand, you need a «copyleft» bit to prevent these,
and that is simply not included in the accepted meaning of the term "free".


-- Toby