On 8/7/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/08/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We have a page setup for FDL suggestions at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions
Sure. But what is going to happen to that page? Will someone definitely make it some kind of official submission? Because if we're talking amongst ourselves about the flaws but those discussions never reach the FSF then that's kind of a problem. :)
Of course! The page says "specifically so that we can go to the FSF and talk about changes that Wikimedia would like to see".
The page was actually created after an informal recommendation by some of the FSF folks that Kat and I met with after the 2007 FSF members meeting.
There is a high level of interest it reaching to meet every reasonable need of ours in the license. In the time since then their willingness to work with us could only have increased with the appointment of [[Mako Hill]], who is as much of a free content person as a free software person, to the board of the FSF.
So input from our community is needed... but input from our community should actually come from our community, and not from someone like me just blathering on. :) ...Which is why it's important that more people go and make comments on the GFDL suggestions page, even if it's just in the form of "I think this sounds good" or "I don't understand this" to the material already there.
Incidentally I wonder if it is not worth having a separate licenses-l or copyright-l list for Wikimedia. A lot of this discussion is highly technical and not necessarily of interest to other subscribers who are interested in Commons. The scope of such discussions is also wider than the Commons community.
Good idea. Although, I think we must try to encourage a broader set of users to at least come listen: Other groups have seen their licensing discussions taken in weird directions by having the discussions only among the most interested parties. These are issues that impact *everyone* in our projects even those who do not care about the technical aspects of licensing discussion. Without a broad set of eyeballs there our recommendations can not be considered a valid representation of the needs of the community.