Editing Text liberation
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Text liberation''' is the [[free circulation of fiction]] subject only to one's own self-chosen [[repute]] and [[trust]] constraints. It cannot ever be reconciled with [[sysop vandalism]] or some [[priestly hierarchy]] that uses its [[technological escalation|control of technology and domain names to also control information]]. [[AlterNIC]] and [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] are or were two attempts to achieve text liberation, of [[TLD]] and [[GFDL corpus]] respectively. It continues via various [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s. | '''Text liberation''' is the [[free circulation of fiction]] subject only to one's own self-chosen [[repute]] and [[trust]] constraints. It cannot ever be reconciled with [[sysop vandalism]] or some [[priestly hierarchy]] that uses its [[technological escalation|control of technology and domain names to also control information]]. [[AlterNIC]] and [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] are or were two attempts to achieve text liberation, of [[TLD]] and [[GFDL corpus]] respectively. It continues via various [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s. | ||
Some of these defy [[Wikimedia corruption]] and refuse to submit to [[GFDL violation|demands for link- | Some of these defy [[Wikimedia corruption]] and refuse to submit to [[GFDL violation|demands for [[link-back]]s that are unwarranted under the actual license of contributions]]. These link-backs would not be required to satisfy [[attribution]] requirements if [[Wikipedia]] actually exported the names of five primary authors as the [[GFDL]] itself requires. So a refusal to meet GFDL's actual terms, which would require export of those five names in '''''any''''' printed or exported version, is used as a shallow excuse to demand concessions from others that makes [[Wikipedia]] the central [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It is actually hard to imagine a better example of corruption. It is no coincidence that [[Daniel Mayer]] writes those demanding letters, either. | ||
:I see this requirement for link back to [[wikipedia]] to be within the meaning of the letter of [[GFDL]] license, it may not be proper in [[w:de jure|de jure]] sense, but as a [[w:de facto|de facto]] practice I personally have no problem with this and I do side on Daniel Mayer's side simply because when we get [[Consumerium]] running I have no problem with people forking off Consumerium if they just acknowldge that the text originated from Consumerium. Fair enough? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 16:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EEST) | :I see this requirement for link back to [[wikipedia]] to be within the meaning of the letter of [[GFDL]] license, it may not be proper in [[w:de jure|de jure]] sense, but as a [[w:de facto|de facto]] practice I personally have no problem with this and I do side on Daniel Mayer's side simply because when we get [[Consumerium]] running I have no problem with people forking off Consumerium if they just acknowldge that the text originated from Consumerium. Fair enough? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 16:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EEST) |