> From: Mister Thrapostibongles <[email protected]> > > 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. Best, Yury. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
