If we're concerned about the WMF referring in its blog to a for-profit organisation that happens to be working with us in a way that is open-source, offline and furthering our mission to distribute our content widely, why did no one complain about the OpenMoko Wikireader being in the WMF blog: http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2009/10/13/openmoko-launches-wikireader/
There are several examples of commercial services being used in Wikimedia projects that are integrated in a way that is acceptable because they further our mission of sharing free-cultural resources effectively: - The Geohack tool that you see when clicking on any geocode link in an article (e.g. "Eiffel Tower": http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Eiffel_Tower¶ms=48.8583_N_2.2945_E_type:landmark_region:FR-75) This brings up a list of for-profit and non-profit mapping services notably Google Maps and OpenStreetMap respectively. - The ISBN lookup tool (e.g. "Anna Karenina" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-84749-059-9 ) brings up an extensive list of commercial book services and public/university libraries. - The "template:social bookmarks" that appears at the bottom of every Wikinews article http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Social_bookmarks (and briefly appeared recently next to every commons file recently) refers our users to several commercial organisations to share/like/fan/digg/tweet/stumble/dent a Wikinews article. All three of those systems are community-developed and no one is reasonably complaining that we are sending our readers to those commercial services because they are integrated in a way that is relevant/appropriate for the kind of re-use that is A Good Thing™. I suspect that the issue lies not with the fact that you are only a couple of clicks away from the PediaPress bookprinting service from every Wikipedia article, but more the fact that the PediaPress system is the *only *service listed on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Book As Erik mentioned in the previous email, the relationship with PediaPress is non-exclusive and entirely independent from the "Book Creator" code. If there is another organisation out there that offers a printing-and-binding service that is comparable to what PediaPress offers then we could/should add it to the list but I don't believe there is. -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l