>No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states
>"Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be
>released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not
>compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't
>be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.
>Angela.
Funny, I was trying to find out whether that was the case a few months
ago with respect to Wikisource. What happened back then suggested that
it was NOT the case. Have a look at the mailing list archives for
November and December 2005 and you will see what I mean.
I posted about the Wikisource copyright licence ambiguity to
foundation-l and the Wikisource Scriptorium and got very unhelpful
answers. I therefore went ahead and started and consultation about
what the terms of the Wikisource copyright page should be. The
conclusion of that consultation was that it was not only free licences
that people wanted on Wikisource. Free licences are certainly
prefereable, but there are things that are not available under free
licences. We also have a serious problem with "fair use" at Wikisource
where people are posting copyvios and then claiming "fair use".
Personally I'm in favour of banning "fair use" contributions to
Wikisource given that Wikisource reproduces the whole of a work.
You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
users at this news.
David Newton
Hi all,
Angela raised the point during the IRC meeting last night that the Board
is unable to make decisions due to the requirement for 5 affirmative
votes before something is implemented. She also mentioned that Michael
Davis and Tim Shell are typically "silent" and due to this it's
difficult to reach decisions.
Rather than discussing forming an "executive committee", which I think
is sweeping the problem underneath the rug, would it not be better to
instead change the voting system used by the Board, so they only need a
simple majority (i.e. 3 votes out of 5) in order to enact a change?
Angela, Florence (when she's not busy having a baby!) and Jimbo are all
active contributors and are definitely trustworthy. Changing the
procedure so they can get things done seems like the best solution to me.
Thoughts?
Chris
--
Chris Jenkinson
chris(a)starglade.org
"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
On 2/12/06, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
> I've been asked to bring this up here as a result of the discussion on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:St…
>
> where a video was nominated for featured status, but several people
> objected because they could not play Ogg Theora. We currently do not
> allow other video formats.
>
> I would suggest implementing the following policy on all Wikimedia wikis:
>
> "It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats like MP3 or
> the MPEG-4 codecs only provided that a version in a non-encumbered
> format is also uploaded. Files which are only provided in
> patent-encumbered formats should be deleted."
>
> Thoughts, comments, objections? Ideally, the conversion could be done
> automatically, but a soft policy might do the trick for now.
I think that is a *terrible* idea, and I also believe that you're not
telling the complete story about the complaints about this video: The
uploader was trying to be helpful and put a note about using
RealPlayer on the image description page (rather than the more
carefully thought out text from our media help page). Most of the
objections were to real player, it seems that the Windows version is
perceived as carrying malware. Once it was pointed out that the video
did not require real player and that it was no different from other
videos the objections were mostly removed.
We already have had enough problems with Windows executibles being
renamed .ogg and uploaded, we really shouldn't make it worse by
actually permitting them.
So how long until the suggestion that our article text be distrubted
in encrypted dupliation locked ebook format?
Kim Bruning wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 12:12:53PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>For copyright infringements where we have an actual complaint by an
>>affected party, (...)
>>
>>
>The problem is where there is no such complaint as yet, or where
>people incorrectly claim "fair use" in an attempt to escape
>deletion.
>
>
If there is no such complaint, what's the urgency that requires you to
unilaterally delete things? Unless you wish to argue, as some people
have about the regular deletion process, that it regularly reaches
incorrect results, I'm not sure why it's so important to short-circuit
the normal procedures for removing copyrighted material that isn't
properly licensed.
--Michael Snow
Not everything that is on Wikipedia is by virtue of it simply being
there, magically transformed into GFDL, as you indicate. That is the
essential problem, and the fallacy (some) users erroneously believe. So
long as there are uploads, there will be copyvio. It must be dealt with
accordingly.
To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
copyvio. It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
delete. The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
actual systemic copyvio problem.
-Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: juriwiki-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:juriwiki-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Cc: juriwiki-l(a)mail.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
Hoi,
The great thing of juriwiki-l is that it is in essence a big black hole.
Things get in there and it is not seen that something comes out. When it
comes to issues with licenses and issues to do with the implementation
of the rules many projects *choose* how to implement them. This results
in content that is inconsistent with the GFDL. This in turn results in
people telling organisations that use Wikipedia content that they cannot
use the content as is.
In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, the license of the Wikimedia
project (GFDL) states that everything that is included in the projects
needs to be available under this license. When people license things
under a license that is more Free, that is fine, but it needs to allow
for GFDL publication.
My question to the nice people that are also on the juriwiki-l am I
correct in what I just said.
Thanks,
GerardM
Patrick, Brad wrote:
> You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
> copyvio as significant. Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
> i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive. Juriwiki-L is the
> place where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>
> Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.
>
> -Brad
>
> Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
> Fowler White Boggs Banker
> 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
> Suite 1700
> Tampa, FL 33602-5239
> (813) 228-7411 main
> (813) 222-3336 direct
> (813) 229-8313 fax
> bpatrick(a)fowlerwhite.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kim Bruning
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:34 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
>> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I
>> lose, my right honerable opposition shall likely successfully
>> endeavour to severely reduce copyright checks on the english
>>
> wikipedia.
>
> The lack of response is deafening! :-P
>
> I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and
> incorrect use of fair use provisions are NOT a concern for the
> foundation at this moment in time?
>
> Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as
> disruptive on en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given
> to the community. I shall concede this point to my opposition, and
> request for copyright checks on en.wikipedia to be curtailed.
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
_______________________________________________
Juriwiki-l mailing list
Juriwiki-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/juriwiki-l
This email and its attachments are strictly intended for use and viewing
by the sole addressee(s) on the juriwiki-l mailing-list.
They cannot be published outside of this list without the prior
authorization of their author(s).
They may contain legally privileged and/or confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or
this email has been sent to you through inadvertence, mistake or
negligence, or you have otherwise received this email without the
knowledge, authority and consent of the sender, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, forwarding, distribution or copying of this
email, and/or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you believe
you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the
juriwiki-l mailing list by writing to juriwiki-l(a)wikimedia.org and
permanently delete the original email and any attachments and discard
any copies or printouts of this email and any attachments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
Hi,
Yes the site currently exists, however this site was designed as a
prototype to see if the mediawiki software and the wiki-type directory
was appropriate. I have found that the software easily meets the
requirements of the proposal and hence would be a possible future
project. The demo site, email addresses and domains were purchased when
I first came up with the idea and now am putting this forward for
discussion as project proposal.
Cheers,
James.
A few days ago I saw the Million Dollar Homepage conceived
by Alex Tew. His website generated a gross income of
$1,037,100 USD by selling image-based links for one dollar per pixel.
So I launched the www.milliondollarartwork.com to help raise some
money for wikimedia. I really appreciate some feedback.
Thanks!
Clemens
I think all would agree a unified license would be the best. I defer to
soufron with respect to the multilingual comparative approach you
suggest.
My recollection from earlier discussions was that the biggest problem
with copyright was the anonymous images which are found by the bushel on
Commons. Anonymous is an awful place to be in terms of protection. But
there is very little to be done with that, I surmise.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: GFDL compatibility (was: Copyright
complaints)
Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi Brad,
> I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it
> being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
> crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of
> the terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence
> would be that material that is not available under the GFDL should not
> be included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?
Our current practice as I understand it is:
- GFDL text can only be combined with text under licenses that are
explicitly compatible with the GFDL. We currently consider simple
attribution-only licenses to be compatible, while there is as of yet no
two-way compatibility to other copyleft licenses like the CC-BY-SA.
Limited fair use quotations are considered outside the scope of
applicability of the license.
- GFDL text can be combined with images under any license which we
permit per project-level policy, e.g.., we consider it a policy issue,
not a legal one, to forbid images which do not allow commercial use.
This combination of GFDL text with non-GFDL images is taken to be
covered by the aggregation clause (section 7) of the GFDL.
Since, with the exception of fair use images, all our allowed image
licenses are philosophically similar to the GFDL, we should strive for
explicit compatibility in the long run.
In addition, there is the practice of multi-licensing both text and
image contributions under the GFDL and one or more other licenses; this
is to ensure that external parties can choose which license to follow,
while all internal use is covered by the GFDL. This is not without its
problems, since in the case of text contributions e.g. under
CC-BY-SA/GFDL, it allows external parties to circumvent the copyleft
requirement by creating a derivative work under a license which is not
compatible with the GFDL.
Our biggest copyright black hole at the moment are fair use images on
en.wikipedia.org. However, we seem to be evolving towards the reasonable
practice of limiting fair use to an explicit whitelist of cases where it
is most defensible; on the English Wikipedia, this is currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use
Different language projects have different policies of fair use; some
follow their national laws (e.g. Polish Wikinews), others exclude it
entirely (German Wikipedia). There might be some which use US Copyright
Law as a basis since our servers are in Florida, and there are certainly
language editions which are fairly lax about image copyrights. I would
suggest an explicit cross-language survey of the issue to be conducted
by the Legal Committee.
HTH,
Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.