OK, I see your point. And I'll backup and say that I don't agree with an organization requiring a creator to give up their right to negotiate commercial compensation for their work.
-- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think wikipedia is run by a non-profit foundation, but there is also > a commercial arm called Wikia. > > Here is a page that explains wikipedia's policy on this stuff in more > detail: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content > > So as other indicated, it boils down to their feeling that > non-commercial restrictions make stuff not free enough to fulfil > wikipedia's mission. > > Im not sure about the whole contradiction thing, because those 2 > policies are related to quite different aims. It isnt that content of > wikipedia itself should not be original content (eg your own words), > but that it should not be original research, should be verifiable. We > can clearly have a nice debate about the pro's and cons of these > particualr wikipedia policies, eg the sorts of sources they accept was > a particular annoyance to many, but I dont quite understand how it > relates to the licensing issue. Because if I wasnt useless and I > actually wrote some words about something on wikipedia, those words > would be my own and Id be giving wikipedia the right to use them under > a certain kind of free license, just as you are being asked to do with > a photograph. Both the words and the photograph are original in the > sense that we create them, and they dont want to rely on fair use to > let others use them, but make sure we are giving them freely. Wheras > the whole 'no original research' etc stuff is more about what the > words actually say and the photo actually shows. Me drawing a picture > of Lily Tomlin and submitting it to that article might be the > equivalent of people adding their own original research to an article, > Im not sure, and in definately not sure how it relates to the > licensing issue. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "andrew michael baron" > <andrew@> wrote: > > > > Wikipedia is a business. > > > > > > Sent via CrackBerry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Enric" <enric@> > > > > Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:17 > > To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia allow commercial CC media > contribution requirement > > > > > > I understand the concept of "Free as in Freedom" (I read the book and > > have read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".) The contradiction I see is > > in disallowing original source contribution to Wikipedia articles > > while allowing commercial usage of original source material in > > Wikipedia without compensation. > > > > -- Enric > > > > --- In videoblogging@ <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux" > > <supercanadian@> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Enric, > > > > > > On 7/14/07, Enric <enric@> wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Why does Wikipedia require commercial use of someones contributed > > > > media work? > > > > > > This reason has to do with some of the philosophy (or whatever you > > > want to call it) behind Wikipedia. > > > > > > When they talk about Wikipedia being a Free encyclopedia... they are > > > talking about "Freedom". (Not free as in gratis. Or free of charge.) > > > > > > Basically... long story short... the NC part of a CC license makes it > > > non-Free (as in Freedom). Which is why they don't accept NC stuff. > > > > > > (I can explain in more detail if you'd like.) > > > > > > > > > See ya > > > > > > -- > > > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. <http://ChangeLog. > <http://ChangeLog.ca/> ca/> > > > > > > > > > All the Vlogging News on One Page > > > http://vlograzor. <http://vlograzor.com/> com/ > > > > > >
