On 8/7/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/08/07, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.