justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Brianna Laugher
Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this? I
understand it and accept it, but I find it hard to respond to users
who say, "Silly me, I thought we were building an encyclopedia here"
and think that "educational/non-commercial purposes only" should be
OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
weak. As does "We also building a totally free stock photography
database". It's not hard to feel gypped when we should be serving WM
projects first and foremost (and at the moment I doubt there's much
outside use, but it's hard to tell).

So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user
see why this requirement is necessary?

cheers,
Brianna ([[commons:User:pfctdayelise]])

--
"Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife."
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Erik Moeller-2
Brianna Laugher:

> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
> weak.

Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:
http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scripts/ts.dll?s=1&id=0C20BDC3&mp=/art/7001/&sc=WikiPress1.htm

Erik
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Brianna Laugher
> > OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
> > weak.
>
> Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:

I know that, but that hardly changes the core goal of WP from being to
build an online encyclopedia. EN.wp is hugely successful without doing
that. I doubt it is in most editors' minds as the point of the
exercise. They just want to improve a fish article with a drawing of
that fish (etc).  Ensuring maximum reuse rights for everyone else is
not at the top of their priority list.

Brianna

--
"Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife."
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Tim 'avatar' Bartel
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Hi Wikipedians,

Brianna Laugher schrieb am 03.04.2006 13:16:

> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this? I
> understand it and accept it, but I find it hard to respond to users
> who say, "Silly me, I thought we were building an encyclopedia here"
> and think that "educational/non-commercial purposes only" should be
> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
> weak. As does "We also building a totally free stock photography
> database". It's not hard to feel gypped when we should be serving WM
> projects first and foremost (and at the moment I doubt there's much
> outside use, but it's hard to tell).
>
> So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user
> see why this requirement is necessary?
Erik wrote a good statement about NC licensing, which can be found here:
http://www.intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC

Bye, Tim.

--
"Von welchem Tag bist Du?" fragte ich, um mich zu vergewissern [...]
"Der vom Donnerstag" stoehnte er.
Das war eigenartig. Sollte ich trotz allem noch der vom Mittwoch sein?
                                         Stanislaw Lem, 7. Reise, 1971


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (558 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
2006/4/3, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]>:

> So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user
> see why this requirement is necessary?

NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL. CC-BY-SA on the other
hand is incompatible on a technical level only. That is, the rules
specify that one cannot cross-license, but the spirit of both licenses
is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step from requiring
everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a much larger step, and
we could not reasonably consider an article as a whole to be GFDL if
there are such images in it.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Brianna Laugher
> NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL. CC-BY-SA on the other
> hand is incompatible on a technical level only. That is, the rules
> specify that one cannot cross-license, but the spirit of both licenses
> is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step from requiring
> everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a much larger step, and
> we could not reasonably consider an article as a whole to be GFDL if
> there are such images in it.

Well, true (although GFDL has that annoying requirement to
print/include the license alongside the product, which is why I
despise it for images), but I guess that raises the more central
question of: what is the big deal about WP being GFDL? My
understanding is that GFDL was chosen as the time partly beause it was
the most well-known copyleft license suitable for text. If we had that
time again, would we still choose GFDL? How about CC-BY-SA? How about
CC-BY-NC? What is the killer argument that Wikipedia should be allowed
to be reused in a commercial setting? (I obviously don't consider the
DVD argument to be a killer argument.)

Brianna
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?

One of the things we want to do is empower broad competitive
distribution of our work at low cost.  When we have a license which is
compatible with commercial redistribution, we empower small scale (or
large scale) entrepreneurs to competitively print (or burn onto CD) our
work for sale to people who can afford the costs of distribution, but
who can not afford the costs of proprietary content.

At the same time, we also do nothing thereby to stand in the way of
people acting charitably to distribute the same thing for free as in beer.

Noncommercial licenses are deeply flawed as a way to help the poor.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

jwales.vcf (286 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Fredrik Josefsson
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
> > NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL.
> CC-BY-SA on the other
> > hand is incompatible on a technical level only.
> That is, the rules
> > specify that one cannot cross-license, but the
> spirit of both licenses
> > is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step
> from requiring
> > everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a
> much larger step, and
> > we could not reasonably consider an article as a
> whole to be GFDL if
> > there are such images in it.
>
> Well, true (although GFDL has that annoying
> requirement to
> print/include the license alongside the product,
> which is why I
> despise it for images), but I guess that raises the
> more central
> question of: what is the big deal about WP being
> GFDL? My
> understanding is that GFDL was chosen as the time
> partly beause it was
> the most well-known copyleft license suitable for
> text. If we had that
> time again, would we still choose GFDL? How about
> CC-BY-SA? How about
> CC-BY-NC? What is the killer argument that Wikipedia
> should be allowed
> to be reused in a commercial setting? (I obviously
> don't consider the
> DVD argument to be a killer argument.)
>
> Brianna


The reason, as far as I see it, is that commerciality
should not be an issue: if someone need to charge for
material, than he should not be prevented by license
restrictions. If anyone wants to print a book of
Wikipedia material, they can't if the material is NC.
Some parts of the world don't have access to Internet,
so printing is the only possibility, and printing
costs money.

/ Fred
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Brianna Laugher:
>
>> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
>> weak.
>
> Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:
> http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scripts/ts.dll?s=1&id=0C20BDC3&mp=/art/7001/&sc=WikiPress1.htm

Yes, but I think what Brianna meant about it sounding weak is that for
many contributors, the idea that we might sell DVDs to make money is not
by itself particularly compelling.


--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

jwales.vcf (286 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

David Benbennick
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On 4/3/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?

I usually point out that Ask.com is ''already'' using Wikipedia and
Commons content for commercial purposes.  For example, the top of
http://www.ask.com/web?q=Petersen+graph shows an image from the
Commons.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Adi & Nadav Perez
If I understand correctly, every mirror that uses ads (like
http://pedia.walla.co.il for he) is commercial usage, so NC/ND is not
practical even now...
Nadav
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Benbennick" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement


> On 4/3/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?
>
> I usually point out that Ask.com is ''already'' using Wikipedia and
> Commons content for commercial purposes.  For example, the top of
> http://www.ask.com/web?q=Petersen+graph shows an image from the
> Commons.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l 

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

Erik Moeller-2
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher:

>>> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
>>> weak.
>> Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:
>
> I know that, but that hardly changes the core goal of WP from being to
> build an online encyclopedia. EN.wp is hugely successful without doing
> that. I doubt it is in most editors' minds as the point of the
> exercise. They just want to improve a fish article with a drawing of
> that fish (etc).  Ensuring maximum reuse rights for everyone else is
> not at the top of their priority list.

But it is at the top of the Wikimedia Foundation's priority list:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
"Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to
the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

en.wp is "hugely successful" in countries with broadly available, cheap,
fast Internet access. When I was in South Africa, a DVD and regular DVD
updates of the English WP was the main thing people there asked for to
use Wikipedia content in schools. Partnerships with commercial entities
are one good way to make that happen.

The licensing framework of Wikipedia and its sister projects is chosen
in such a way to maximize distribution and derivative works. However, I
do agree that a Wikimedia FAQ or position paper on these issues,
including examples and anecdotes, might be a good way to educate editors
about the goals of the Foundation.

Erik
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l