On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely > > and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral > > rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in > > the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all > > explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did > > not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or > > noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what > > we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone. > Well said - I couldn't agree more. > Personally, I care whether or not reusers attempt to follow the spirit of > the copyleft and make their changes and contributions available for future > reuse. You're mixing issues - nobody has a problem with 'follow[ing] the spirit of the copyleft', it's making them jump through arbitrary hoops to do so that is the problem. > If we wanted to be truly free, we would all license our work into the > public domain, but instead we work under a copyleft and I consider honoring > that distinction to be important. > Nobody is suggesting otherwise. There are plenty of good reasons not to use public domain and I for one certainly value the 'protection' of CC-BY-SA without the 'exclusion' of detailed (yet meaningless) attributions. Sam _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
