Books by Wikimedia Foundation Options

[mbz1]

I've noticed recently that there are many ebooks published by Wikimedia Foundation. Let's for example take a look at this one
in particular at the section named "Etymology" (scroll down to the page #1). Please compare this section to this section of Wikipedia article.
The article is free, the book is $2.51. Why?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[lilburne]

The license is based on the re-user fulfilling the requirements. Courts have already established that a free license has an economical value to the licensor even if cash doesn't change hands and the free license brigade are actively arguing for injunctions to stop distribution of works where a licenses terms have been broken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer

[dogbiscuit]

The license is based on the re-user fulfilling the requirements. Courts have already established that a free license has an economical value to the licensor even if cash doesn't change hands and the free license brigade are actively arguing for injunctions to stop distribution of works where a licenses terms have been broken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer

I'm still going to Yes But this, I don't doubt that you are correct, but my point is what is the relevance of this to your average Wikipedian who in reality has a minor problem, though there may be a major principle at stake.

There is an activist movement who may pursue headline cases, but as for Joe Public, are they really going to take the time and effort to pursue this?

A user has a few of his pictures used not in the terms of the licence. What is the real economic value of these? What is the cost of an injunction? Who is going to pay for that injunction? Is the WMF going to follow this up on a matter of principle to protect its asset, Wikipedia, or is the "free licence brigade" going to step in?

[melloden]

I'm still going to Yes But this, I don't doubt that you are correct, but my point is what is the relevance of this to your average Wikipedian who in reality has a minor problem, though there may be a major principle at stake.

There is an activist movement who may pursue headline cases, but as for Joe Public, are they really going to take the time and effort to pursue this?

A user has a few of his pictures used not in the terms of the licence. What is the real economic value of these? What is the cost of an injunction? Who is going to pay for that injunction? Is the WMF going to follow this up on a matter of principle to protect its asset, Wikipedia, or is the "free licence brigade" going to step in?

Mila isn't Joe Public. She's unique. Obviously the WMF is not going to give a shit about this. Mila just wants to play the finger-pointing game because how else is she going to feel "accepted" by the rest of the WRers?

It's like WP:POINT, except it's not about WP here.