Remember the dot

re Free license

I certainly agree that the paragraph which you quoted is inflammatory, and should not be a part of the definition.

I get my attitude to definitions from reading too much income tax law. Definitions in isolation are not policy; they are there to insure that we mean the same thing when the term is used. Elaborations of a definitions only tend to add confusion.

I do believe that definitions that depend on links to other sites over which we have no control do not represent sound policy drafting. My inclination would be to support inclusion of the part that I quoted in my answer as the definition. Some of the rest of that document goes beyond mere definition. Eclecticology 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Supporting an "identical version" would be far too restrictive, so it would not be appropriate to let myself be pinned down to such a tight position. There are grammatical considerations; the paragraph really has two concepts that it's trying to define, free works and free licences. The last sentence roughly encapsulates my view that a definition is not policy by itself. Some of the rest of the document includes a number of sub-definitions that also need to be taken in consideration.

So, while I am willing to work toward a clearer definition along the lines indicated, I am not so naïve as to believe that my views will be immediately adopted unscathed. Insisting on that is a sure way to encourage defeat. Getting something changed will require negotiating support from a majority of the Board. Eclecticology 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Working toward neutral language is perfectly acceptable. There are places for preaching the evils or virtues of copyright, and a definition is not such a place. Eclecticology 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

re Free license from Ting

Hello, I agree with the licence we are using now. What I don't agree with, are sentences such as "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used". I don't consider this as part of the licence, or the definition of free content. This passage is quite POV.--Wing 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if an amendment is in schedule I would put that point on.--Wing 05:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not push it because I don't consider it urgent. I would at first talk to other people to see how they see it and if I see a majority in favor for a change I would put it as an official topic.--Wing 05:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)