Jeffrey, You are aware that Wikimedia projects use creative commons licenses, right? You have noticed that Wikimedia projects delete content on-sight that is a copyright violation? You do know that creative commons is a project to promote the *legal* re-use of copyrighted material?
As the article says: "While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators." Given that the Wikimedia projects are smack-bang in the middle of the free-culture movement, don't you think that you might be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that David G is in any way out of place to be pointing this issue out to us on this list? On 25 June 2010 23:39, Jeffrey Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear James, > > If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to > him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only > what > wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law > that > was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e. the > anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something > Lawrence > Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end any > enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be > blatant piracy). > > I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright > restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a > lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not want > to be released freely. > > Sincerely, > Jeffrey Peters > aka Ottava Rima > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
