GFDL corpus: Difference between revisions
Correct typo - remove space at start of line. Note:Wikitravel is CC-SA not GFDL.
(add Anarchopedia - very promising GFDLcap) |
(Correct typo - remove space at start of line. Note:Wikitravel is CC-SA not GFDL.) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
---------- | ---------- | ||
I do feel strongly that the purpose of the Wikipedia community is to build an open content encyclopedia, I don't know what it would mean for it to be the other way around. I thought that the intent of the project was to build a free and open encyclopedia, that would not be 'owned' by anyone in a restrictive sense. The fact that the license allows use by others and forks means that the total amount of free and open encyclopedia that can be built is bigger than Wikipedia itself, also, the GFDL material contributed by Internet Encyclopedia, ''WikiTravel*'', WikiQuote and Wiktionary to name but a few are part of the GFDL corpus, but not Wikipedia. I don't think that to point that out is disrespectful at all. Perhaps I was misunderstood. | |||
:''* Note: [http://www.wikitravel.org/ Wikitravel] is not GFDL but CC-SA. - [http://www.wikitravel.org/en/article/User:Huttite Huttite]'' | |||
I don't really understand your points about the relationship between the GFDL text and the community and software. Props are due to the founders, their vision, the contributors and all involved, but the fact is that when someone presses 'submit', they maintain copyright over the material, and grant generous terms of use to anyone who wants to use them under those terms. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an effective and good way to build this corpus of open and free content, and it is a great front end to edit and view it, it is also an excellent group of people who do this, but it is not the same thing as the material licensed under the GDFL, which is not licensed exclusively to it (that's what 'free' means). I don't understand how pointing out this fact about the license is disrespectful or an afront. It's there in black and white, and it's not a bad thing. Mark Richards 02:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) | I don't really understand your points about the relationship between the GFDL text and the community and software. Props are due to the founders, their vision, the contributors and all involved, but the fact is that when someone presses 'submit', they maintain copyright over the material, and grant generous terms of use to anyone who wants to use them under those terms. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an effective and good way to build this corpus of open and free content, and it is a great front end to edit and view it, it is also an excellent group of people who do this, but it is not the same thing as the material licensed under the GDFL, which is not licensed exclusively to it (that's what 'free' means). I don't understand how pointing out this fact about the license is disrespectful or an afront. It's there in black and white, and it's not a bad thing. Mark Richards 02:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) | ||