> From: Mister Thrapostibongles <thrapostibong...@gmail.com>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  Firstly, this isn't the right venue
> for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing,
> especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit
> commercial reuse.
In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but
let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing
policy of Wikimedia projects.

I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the
use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial
clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial
clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and
rights to go to court over your use of the work.

> And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner
> from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they own:
> so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for
instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to