Robert Horning writes:
> I've seen other websites try this with Wikimedia content, and I don't
> know how you give "full notice to the community" of a license change.
I regard this as essentially a trivial problem. You could put it on
the front page of each language's Wikipedia, for example. Those who
never see the Project front pages might not see such a notice -- but
they probably don't know we're having a fundraiser, either.
Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that the set of contributors who both
(a) insist on an old version of GFDL and (b) care about it enough to
remove content if migration happens, and (c) wouldn't hear about the
migration is a very, very, small set of contributors.
> If you are modifying the license
> terms outside of the terms of the GFDL, you need to renegotiate with
> that contributor...including all anonymous contributors.
I don't believe this is required, as a practical matter. Consider,
for example, credit-card companies. They change the terms of user
agreements all the time, unilaterally. They issue long, complicated
notices when they do this. Amazingly, this triggers neither mass
departures nor massive negotiations with individuals. And they are
dealing with far larger populations than we are.
I agree that you're right in theory, of course. In practice, not so
big a problem.
> Such a license change (barring massive cooperation from the Free
> Software Foundation to change the GFDL itself using the "or later
> version" escape clause) would require all contributions to be removed
> from Wikipedia by those authors who didn't agree to the change.
We are, of course, assuming cooperation from FSF as a prerequisite
for all this. As Jimbo says, this whole discussion is a product of
three-way negotiations between FSF, CC, and WMF. If FSF suddenly
said, hey, we're never going to do anything to support migration to a
version of GFDL that looks like a version of CC-BY-SA, we could stop
this whole discussion immediately.
What I've been telling people is that if you don't trust the FSF Board
to be custodians of the meaning of GFDL, then you have bigger problems
with the GFDL than anything Wikimedia Foundation could create. Me, I
trust the FSFers.
> An attempt by the WMF to go this route would simply mean a
> fork in Wikipedia where "purists" who want to maintain the GFDL
> version
> of Wikipedia would have everything that currently exists, and the CC-
> by
> version would be a hollow shell of the original version of the
> Wikipedia.
I think the risk of a fork is very low, at this late date. But even if
it happened, the notion that "purists" would somehow control the
"original" Wikipedia while the CC-BY-SA version would be a "hollow
shell" strikes me as less likely than the other way around.
> BTW, you can count me in an a GFDL ideologist if you want, and my
> contributions are under the terms of the GFDL.... and I intend to
> enforce that license on anything I've contributed to Wikimedia
> projects
> where the GFDL is the explicit default license of the project.
I of course support your prerogative to do this. I think that any
migration has to accommodate GFDL "ideologists" and allow for their
removal of their content if they believe the project is not adequately
copyleft for them.
> But then again, those websites
> generally got so little web traffic that most of them fold up after
> less
> than a year of operation.
There's also the notion that we law students learned early on -- "de
minimis non curat lex." But that's okay, since you wouldn't have to
seek legal recourse to address your objections -- you'd just remove
your contributions, citing GFDL concerns, and no one would stop you.
But remember (a) we're talking about migration in cooperation with
FSF, not in opposition to FSF, and (b) the CC-BY-SA license is
designed to be viral to the same degree as GFDL, without being as
cumbersome.
At the end of the day, what you have to ask yourself is this: is our
primary purpose as Wikipedians to get the knowledge out to the world
for free (and in a way that keeps it free), or is our purpose to
privilege an older version of GFDL regardless of whether it inhibits
our ability to provide the world information for free? I tend to
think our purpose is more the first than the second.
--Mike
geni writes:
>> If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by
>> you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a
>> new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
>
> And if even a handful of oldtimes want their stuff removed? Have you
> any idea how much work that would involve? While we might have the man
> hours they could be better spent.
Naturally, I have an idea how much time it would involve. One may
reasonably assume that oldtimers who want their stuff removed would
help us comply in removing it. One may reasonably assume that the
hours that they'd otherwise spend would not be spent on Wikipedia
articles (since, according to your scenario, they would object to the
new license that FSF approved and that WMF had implemented). It
wouldn't be very Wikipedian of them to send me demand letters (through
their lawyers) and have me do it. I've been working with volunteer
contributors for a long time (17 years, actually), so I have an idea
about how well asking for their help in meeting their own concerns
would work. (It would work pretty well.)
But the fantasy here is in supposing that there's an option that
*doesn't* require additional labor. If nothing changes, and if the
current GFDL remains the paradigm, immense amounts of work in
compliance with that license's more onerous terms will be required --
man hours that could be better spent.
That's why it's important to remain focused on the fact that it is
possible to provide a copyleft scheme that is consistent with the
values of GFDL but does not require application of a license designed
for GPL-code-oriented software manuals to wiki content. The only
question is, do we care enough about the projects' primary mission to
ensure that the information in them becomes, and stays, maximally
available to everyone in the world.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> Well, let's take an example. [[User:Alex756]]
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756) is a lawyer who would like
> to revoke his contributions under the GFDL. His contributions exceed
> 5000. Surely there's a good chance he would take such an opportunity
> to opt-out. Imagine the work it'd take just to comply with that one
> request.
I'm imagining it. It doesn't strike me as an impossible problem,
especially if Alex cared enough about his contributions to help us
remove them. But my belief is that the migration we're talking about
is one that Alex would not object to, since the idea is migrate to a
new license that is consistent with the mission of the earlier
versions of the GFDL, but better-designed for wikis.
> I don't think anyone who
> claims to know with a large degree of certainty how such a case would
> turn out is being at all honest.
I don't know anyone who claims anything with "a large degree of
certainty," but one of the functions of the law is to generate
predictable outcomes. And I also think that anyone who's quick to
accuse others of dishonesty probably isn't Assuming Good Faith.
--Mike
Thomas Dalton writes:
> Ok, thanks for clarifying that. In that case, I suggest we drop the
> whole issue of opt-outs. If there isn't any legal reason for doing it,
> then we just shouldn't do it.
I didn't say there was no legal reason for doing it. I said the reason
to do so was primarily (not solely) a moral argument. I think there is
a fairly untroubling legal justification for providing an opt-out, and
a persuasive moral/cultural reason for doing so.
> Consider this scenario:
>
> 1) A French resident adds something to Wikipedia, under the current
> GFDL (They don't need to be French, but they need to be willing and
> able to sue in a French court, so it's easiest to assume they're
> French.)
> 2) Wikipedia invokes the "or later" clause and moves over to a later
> GFDL
> 3) Someone else edits the article, with their contribs under the new
> license
> 4) Another French resident tries to reuse that article.
>
> As far as French law is (apparently) concerned, the initial user's
> contribs are still under the old GFDL, so whatever the person in step
> 4 tries to integrate the work into has to be under the old license,
> yet it also has to be under the new license to be able to include the
> contribs added in step 3. You end up with the reuser having to have
> parts of their new work under one license and parts under another,
> which is very confusing, very difficult to keep track of, and also
> possible in violation of the GFDL anyway.
Remember that copyright law only protects particular expression of
ideas, and not ideas or information themselves. In the event that the
initial user objected to the reuse, he (or anyone else) could revise
the passage in question so that it retained the same ideas or
information without reproducing the expression protected by copyright.
This is only one reason it seems unlikely that a Wikipedian would
simply sue us (or the other French resident) rather than seek (or
help in) the removal of the content that he or she believed could not
be reused under the new license. I hope you're not assuming that
French or German Wikipedians are more likely to seek destruction of a
project instead of our willing compliance to their demand for removal
of content composed under (an older version of) GFDL.
Since I've been involved in a wide range of actual copyright cases, I
think I have a pretty clear idea of what makes such cases come about.
It seems to me that it is relatively easy to avoid copyright
litigation, even in France or Germany, even if we assume that French
and German law would not recognize the validity of license migration.
The notion that is being floated here, that license migration would
make various language Wikipedias somehow "illegal" in France or
Germany strikes this particular lawyer as rather science-fictional.
(Note, by the way, that I'm not nearly so complacent about other areas
of the law, such as defamation, which are not subject to international
standardization the way copyright law has been under WIPO, TRIPS, and
other international and multinational agreements. With copyright, the
variations among nations signatory to the treaties are comparatively
small. Note also that, as a lawyer, I'm rather more conservative
about using a term like "illegal" than some non-lawyers are around
here.)
> (The WMF actually has the same problem, but doesn't fall under French
> jurisdiction, so it's not an issue.)
The WMF certainly can be sued in France, and has been. (We won on
procedural grounds, not jurisdictional ones. Had our only argument
been that WMF "doesn't fall under French jurisdiction," we would
likely have lost. This would have left the plaintiffs in the position
of having to seek to enforce the judgment in an American court, but it
is not obvious to me that such an effort would have failed.)
--Mike
Dear all,
The chapters committee [1] has now existed for almost two years and
with the growing number of chapters in the making and existing
chapters, the original crew is seeking reinforcements.
So if you (in no particular order):
- are aware of what the Wikimedia organisation is all about
- are ready to read lots of long boring bylaw documents
- are involved in Wikimedia on an international level
- have time to invest in this task
- preferably have some kind of international experience
- are ready to learn about many different legal systems
- are good at making your point go across without alienating anyone
- think chapters are important
- fluent in English
- are interested in working with the existing crew
please contact us at chaptercommittee-l[AT]lists.wikimedia[PUNTO]org
with a little explanation of why you are interested, and what you
think you can bring to the chapters committee.
We are looking at adding around 3 members to the chapters committee at
this stage.
Thank you,
Delphine
Chair of the chapters committee
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee
Other useful links:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chaptershttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guidehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ
--
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in
*Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
NB. Cette adresse est utilisée pour les listes de diffusion. Tout
email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera probablement perdu.
luke brandt writes:
> CZ have always promised to be _open content_ and [[open content]]
> can be
> -NC. At least WP says it can. As a non-profit project isn't Wikipedia
> free to use NC if it wishes, though re-users would have to be
> warned. --
> luke
Even though we ourselves are a non-profit, we wouldn't be able to feed
NC content to for-profit enterprises, which is something we do now.
--Mike
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> I regard this as essentially a trivial problem. You could put it on
>> the front page of each language's Wikipedia, for example. Those who
>> never see the Project front pages might not see such a notice -- but
>> they probably don't know we're having a fundraiser, either.
>
> What does a fundraiser have to do with it? Are you suggesting that
> people that don't donate don't deserve to have their legal rights
> respected?
Of course not. I'm suggesting that the percentage of people who care
about GFDL's specifics but who would miss a general announcement is
very small.
It would be very strange for anyone to make the argument that I, a
lawyer whose career has mostly centered on preserving the rights of
people who normally can't pay for their own lawyers, would argue that
non-donaters don't deserve their legal rights. You must have a very
odd impression of me. Are you familiar with my work?
>> Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that the set of contributors who both
>> (a) insist on an old version of GFDL and (b) care about it enough to
>> remove content if migration happens, and (c) wouldn't hear about the
>> migration is a very, very, small set of contributors.
>
> It only takes one.
It only takes one to do what, exactly? To make a fuss? We already
have people who make fusses over all sorts of things. We generally try
to accommodate complaints if they're reasonable. But if someone meets
criteria (a), (b), and (c) above, then, by definition, they wouldn't
make a fuss (because of (c)). If they learned about the migration
later, why, then, we'd address their concerns and likely remove their
content accordingly.
> Credit card companies have a list of people they need to notify. We
> don't.
Except that you seem to be saying we do. Specifically, some people
seem to be saying we (a) do have a large (impossible!) number of
people to notify, and (b) we can't possibly notify them in a general
way but must seek individual contact with them instead.
> You've yet to describe a practical way of removing content.
I can think of a couple of ways. So can you, I'm willing to bet. I
leave this as an exercise for the reader. (Alternatively, other folks
can chime in here.)
> You're the lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the law doesn't care what our
> primary purpose is. We still have to obey it, even if it goes against
> what we're trying to do.
I'm not advising anyone not to obey the law. As a lawyer for the
Foundation, my job is partly to help the Foundation and the Projects
achieve their primary purposes, and to suggest ways of doing so that
don't create legal problems. I doubt anything I've suggested here will
get anyone sent to jail or anyone sued.
--Mike
Can you folks PLEASE consider
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1
I am not amused when I read digests like the digest below.
Thanks
Klaus Graf
2007/11/22, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: GFDL and relicensing (SJ Klein)
> 2. Re: GFDL and Relicensing (Lars Aronsson)
> 3. Re: GFDL and Relicensing (Ray Saintonge)
> 4. Re: Pledge bank (GerardM)
> 5. Re: FW: A Crime in Missouri (Marc Riddell)
> 6. Re: GFDL and Relicensing (Robert Rohde)
> 7. Re: FW: A Crime in Missouri (Dan Rosenthal)
> 8. Re: FW: A Crime in Missouri (Marc Riddell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:53:47 -0500 (EST)
> From: SJ Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711221551160.27587(a)hera.hcs.harvard.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>
> "does this conversation have the Viral-nature?"
>
> Others would say that it is the social and not the legal viral component
> that has had true impact. (though this hides the fact that law is simply
> a social component cast in aa that changes very slowly over time)
>
> SJ
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Robert Horning wrote:
> >> BTW, this is precisely the situation that Stallman wanted when he wrote
> >> the GFDL. It is a viral license, and taints everything that it
> >> touches. This is also one of the key reasons why there are people who
> >> simply hate the GFDL and GPL, for this exact reason.
> >>
> > Some of us would consider the viral nature as the most enlightened
> > feature of the licence.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:46:29 +0100 (CET)
> From: Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711222054220.16744(a)localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote:
>
> > of cases where people (in Germany) notice an '...or later'
> > clause and sign a contract anyhow because they know, that this
> > clause is ineffective.
>
> German law applies *in Germany*, not *to Germans*. As soon as
> they (or their works) move beyond borders, they are exposed to
> other legal systems. (Go to China and kill someone -- you might
> be sentenced to death.) So if the clause is ineffective under
> German law, you can feel "safe" only as long as you (and your
> work) stay in that country.
>
> Suppose the WMF in the year 2057 decides to use your Wikipedia
> articles in accordance with GFDL version 17. You're in Germany
> and claim that you never legally agreed to this, and you sue WMF
> for copyright infringement in a German court of law. That might
> stop WMF from reusing your articles in this way in Germany, but it
> doesn't stop WMF from reusing your articles in this way in Mexico.
> If you're going to sue anybody for copyright infringement in
> Mexico, you must find arguments that work under Mexican law.
>
> The state of Bavaria claims they own Hitler's copyright, which
> they confiscated in 1948, and sued a Swedish publisher of a
> translated "Mein Kampf" (1992). But the Swedish supreme court in
> 1998 said a state cannot legally confiscate copyright for the
> purpose of blocking publishing, since that would mean censorship,
> and turned the case down. The book is sold in stores (part 1, ISBN
> 978-91-7123-100-0 and part 2, ISBN 978-91-7123-101-7).
>
>
> --
> Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:22:33 -0800
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4745F319.30602(a)telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Robert Rohde wrote:
> > Some of us, myself included, believe that commercial reuse SHOULD BE
> > burdensome. Or more specifically, if a commercial publisher is going to
> > profit on the back of content they didn't create and with no funds going to
> > the authors, then it should be dreadfully obvious that the content in
> > question is free content, and not the run-of-the-mill restricted content
> > that they always publish. In some ways the GFDL is overboard in that regard
> > (i.e. you don't need a long license document for a single image), but I
> > believe publishers should be burdened with making their use of free content
> > clearly identified.
> >
> > Also, I realize that not everyone feels the same way about being burdensome.
> I have no problem with commercial reuse. In a way it seems to me that
> NC licences are counterproductive. We want the viral nature of the
> licence to infect the commercial sites.
>
> On the other hand, when it comes to fair use material, I don't think
> that it should be our duty to do the fair use evaluation for commercial
> operations.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:59:35 +0100
> From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pledge bank
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <41a006820711221359rb564738t1addc50520aba69b(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> So it is not interesting that the servers are running and stay that way ...
> Hmmm
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 8:59 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I really like the idea of having a pledge bank and keeping people who
> > are
> > > making regular, albeit small, donations informed about what WMF is up
> > to. If
> > > we can say, "Your donations allowed us to run a number of workshops in
> > South
> > > Africa. That was 3 months ago, the Africaans Wikipedia has grown by x
> > > hundred articles since then." My objective here? You're showing donors
> > that
> > > their money is making a difference, even if - with English WP at 2 mill+
> > > articles - they never notice the difference.
> >
> > The problem is, most of the money goes on just keeping the servers
> > running, it doesn't go on anything interesting.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:59:31 -0500
> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: A Crime in Missouri
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <C36B65F3.A96F%michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Thanks, Brigitte, I didn't know. I'd also be curious as to how the law
> defines stalking and harassment.
>
> Marc
>
> on 11/22/07 2:57 PM, Birgitte SB at birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I happen to live near this town and do know the
> > details [1].
> >
> > I can't see how this could involve WMF. The idea is
> > to make it possible to prosecute individuals who
> > intentionally harass others online. It has nothing to
> > do with the means of harassment. The only way I see
> > WMF being affected is if the person charged with
> > harassment is a checkuser or employee or something.
> >
> > BirgitteSB
> >
> > [1]
> > http://us.f303.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?box=Foundation%2dl&Mid=2863_106207…
> > 2964_3161_498_0_31904_1095_70994589&inc=&Search=&YY=11233&y5beta=yes&y5beta=ye
> > s&order=down&sort=date&pos=0
> >
> > --- Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> This copy was meant for this List.
> >>
> >> Marc
> >> ----------
> >> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> >> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:20:08 -0500
> >> To: WikiEN List <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Cc: Foundation List
> >> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Subject: [Foundation-l] A Crime in Missouri
> >>
> >> This is a question for you legal eagles out there:
> >>
> >> A town in Missouri (USA) has made on-line stalking
> >> and harassment a crime. I
> >> don't know much of the details, I just got it from
> >> CNN. But my question is,
> >> if the person charged an/or convicted of this crime
> >> were doing this in
> >> Wikipedia, or one of the other Projects, would the
> >> case involve us.
> >>
> >> Just curious.
> >>
> >> Marc Riddell
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe:
> >>
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe:
> >>
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________________
> > ______
> > Be a better pen pal.
> > Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> > http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:11:43 -0800
> From: "Robert Rohde" <rarohde(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <b4da1c6e0711221411j7b2e774eje4b2728238657d2d(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 1:22 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Robert Rohde wrote:
> > > Some of us, myself included, believe that commercial reuse SHOULD BE
> > > burdensome. Or more specifically, if a commercial publisher is going to
> > > profit on the back of content they didn't create and with no funds going
> > to
> > > the authors, then it should be dreadfully obvious that the content in
> > > question is free content, and not the run-of-the-mill restricted content
> > > that they always publish. In some ways the GFDL is overboard in that
> > regard
> > > (i.e. you don't need a long license document for a single image), but I
> > > believe publishers should be burdened with making their use of free
> > content
> > > clearly identified.
> > >
> > > Also, I realize that not everyone feels the same way about being
> > burdensome.
> > I have no problem with commercial reuse. In a way it seems to me that
> > NC licences are counterproductive. We want the viral nature of the
> > licence to infect the commercial sites.
> >
> > <snip>
>
>
> Actually, I would be careful about this language. I don't want them
> "infected". If they choose to embrace GFDL / CC-SA of their own free will,
> then fine. But free content shouldn't be a disease that ambushes
> unsuspecting publishers. To that end, being very clear about the
> implications of these licenses is important.
>
> Frankly calling it "free content" actually feels like a misnomer when using
> this "free" material comes with a heavy burden that can hypothetical deprive
> people of income from their own work.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:35:12 -0500
> From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: A Crime in Missouri
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <D8235D60-E698-4B07-8B3D-8777EDC6676C(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Depends on the jurisdiction.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Brigitte, I didn't know. I'd also be curious as to how the law
> > defines stalking and harassment.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > on 11/22/07 2:57 PM, Birgitte SB at birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> I happen to live near this town and do know the
> >> details [1].
> >>
> >> I can't see how this could involve WMF. The idea is
> >> to make it possible to prosecute individuals who
> >> intentionally harass others online. It has nothing to
> >> do with the means of harassment. The only way I see
> >> WMF being affected is if the person charged with
> >> harassment is a checkuser or employee or something.
> >>
> >> BirgitteSB
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://us.f303.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?box=Foundation%2dl&Mid=2863_106207…
> >> 2964_3161_498_0_31904_1095_70994589
> >> &inc=&Search=&YY=11233&y5beta=yes&y5beta=ye
> >> s&order=down&sort=date&pos=0
> >>
> >> --- Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This copy was meant for this List.
> >>>
> >>> Marc
> >>> ----------
> >>> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> >>> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >>> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:20:08 -0500
> >>> To: WikiEN List <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Cc: Foundation List
> >>> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Subject: [Foundation-l] A Crime in Missouri
> >>>
> >>> This is a question for you legal eagles out there:
> >>>
> >>> A town in Missouri (USA) has made on-line stalking
> >>> and harassment a crime. I
> >>> don't know much of the details, I just got it from
> >>> CNN. But my question is,
> >>> if the person charged an/or convicted of this crime
> >>> were doing this in
> >>> Wikipedia, or one of the other Projects, would the
> >>> case involve us.
> >>>
> >>> Just curious.
> >>>
> >>> Marc Riddell
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> >>>
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> >>>
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________________________
> >> ______
> >> Be a better pen pal.
> >> Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> >> http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:48:32 -0500
> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: A Crime in Missouri
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <C36B716F.A977%michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Dan,
>
> In you experience, how do some of the definitions go? Isn't, particularly,
> harassment a subjective thing?
>
> Marc
>
>
> on 11/22/07 5:35 PM, Dan Rosenthal at swatjester(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Depends on the jurisdiction.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Nov 22, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, Brigitte, I didn't know. I'd also be curious as to how the law
> >> defines stalking and harassment.
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >> on 11/22/07 2:57 PM, Birgitte SB at birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> I happen to live near this town and do know the
> >>> details [1].
> >>>
> >>> I can't see how this could involve WMF. The idea is
> >>> to make it possible to prosecute individuals who
> >>> intentionally harass others online. It has nothing to
> >>> do with the means of harassment. The only way I see
> >>> WMF being affected is if the person charged with
> >>> harassment is a checkuser or employee or something.
> >>>
> >>> BirgitteSB
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> http://us.f303.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?box=Foundation%2dl&Mid=2863_1062078
> >>> _3
> >>> 2964_3161_498_0_31904_1095_70994589
> >>> &inc=&Search=&YY=11233&y5beta=yes&y5beta=ye
> >>> s&order=down&sort=date&pos=0
> >>>
> >>> --- Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This copy was meant for this List.
> >>>>
> >>>> Marc
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> >>>> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >>>> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:20:08 -0500
> >>>> To: WikiEN List <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> Cc: Foundation List
> >>>> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> Subject: [Foundation-l] A Crime in Missouri
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a question for you legal eagles out there:
> >>>>
> >>>> A town in Missouri (USA) has made on-line stalking
> >>>> and harassment a crime. I
> >>>> don't know much of the details, I just got it from
> >>>> CNN. But my question is,
> >>>> if the person charged an/or convicted of this crime
> >>>> were doing this in
> >>>> Wikipedia, or one of the other Projects, would the
> >>>> case involve us.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just curious.
> >>>>
> >>>> Marc Riddell
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> Unsubscribe:
> >>>>
> >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> Unsubscribe:
> >>>>
> >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________________________
> >>> __
> >>> ______
> >>> Be a better pen pal.
> >>> Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> >>> http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 44, Issue 107
> *********************************************
>
On Nov 21, 2007, at 7:00 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Wikipedia itself is doomed by inertia to remain GFDL. WMF
> doesn't hold any of the rights and thus doesn't have the power to deem
> things relicensed; you'd need the copyright holders to do that.
I don't think the problem is quite as intractable as all that,
although I will grant it is a tricky problem. In my (possibly
misinformed) view, FSF is the custodian of the meaning and terms of
the GFDL, which allows for migration to later versions of GFDL, which
creates the possibility of an approved GFDL that is essentially an
equivalent to an updated CC-BY-SA license. FSF is currently in dialog
with Creative Commons about harmonizing GFDL with CC-BY-SA.
WMF doesn't have to "deem things relicensed." Instead, it could say,
with full notice to the community, and after plenty of public
discussion, that its view is that the content in Wikipedia should
migrate to the harmonized GFDL/CC-BY-SA license (version 3.x for both,
most likely), and offer community members plenty of latitude to opt
out by removing content (I'd be inclined to give GFDL licensors that
option indefinitely). We might lose some content that way, but I
personally doubt we'd lose much. So I don't think we're stuck with the
awful choice of having to stick with GFDL or start a new project.
--Mike
All -
we've set up a blog to accompany our annual fundraiser. The headlines
from the blog will be featured in the sitenotice:
http://whygive.wikimedia.org/
I'd like to invite you to submit posts to the blog. These posts can be
provocative, and should give compelling reasons to support the
Wikimedia Foundation. You can draft posts here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/Why_Give_blog
Posts will be selected by a number of people: Cary Bass (our Volunteer
Coordinator), Sandy Ordonez (our Communications Manager), Sue Gardner
(Special Advisor to the Board), and myself. We'll probably try to have
a new post every 2-3 days at least.
Once again, the point of these posts is first and foremost to invite
the general public to donate. :-) Please submit stories in this
general spirit.
If you are willing to act as a moderator for comments to vet out spam
& trolling, please contact Cary Bass at <cbass AT wikimedia DOT org>.
For now, this is an experiment and as such, only in English. We will
set up blogs in other languages if this one has a measurable impact on
our fundraising.
Thanks for any and all help!
Erik Möller
Member of the Board