Message: 4 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:08:25 +0100 From: Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Proposal for an allrightsreserved.wikimedia.org website To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTikSY-eAR4+T8yyopXXBJc3Q3u2uR2P3OG_e5-VY@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 1 February 2011 22:27, Blurpeace blurpeace@gmail.com wrote:
so we can remove two sentences from project policy?
Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than just ?able to use?, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply distinguish the non-free files from the free rest).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
Whats being proposed here doesn't directly fix that, since if you setup multiple foreign repositories (at least how the code currently work), other people using you as a forign repository can get to foreign files through you. However, it'd probably make the coding required to exclude such files significantly easier.
Someone else said:
But. there's no reason why the two should be technically separated. It's already been practically divided by categories. It's not considered unnecessary faff just by techs; any pragmatic person would agree.
Has any of the ops people actually said this would be annoying or in anyway difficult to set up. I know things get much more complicated when you're dealing with 800 wikis, one of which is in the top 6 (or whatever) sites of the internet, but still - this looks like about 5 extra lines in one config file (assuming meta is used so a new wiki isn't set up). The only complicated bit might be make global image links work (but then again, there may be complications i just don't see).
-bawolff
On 2 February 2011 19:04, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than just ?able to use?, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply distinguish the non-free files from the free rest).
Whats being proposed here doesn't directly fix that, since if you setup multiple foreign repositories (at least how the code currently work), other people using you as a forign repository can get to foreign files through you. However, it'd probably make the coding required to exclude such files significantly easier.
Of course you will always _be able to_ get to the files (if only through screen-scraping or whatever). The point is that currently, the moment you enable InstantCommons, you get non-free files together with the free ones whether you want them or not. If we move non-free files away from Commons, the InstantCommons configuration should keep using only commons.wikimedia.org as a repository, which would solve the problem.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2011 19:04, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than just ?able to use?, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply distinguish the non-free files from the free rest).
Whats being proposed here doesn't directly fix that, since if you setup multiple foreign repositories (at least how the code currently work), other people using you as a forign repository can get to foreign files through you. However, it'd probably make the coding required to exclude such files significantly easier.
Of course you will always _be able to_ get to the files (if only through screen-scraping or whatever). The point is that currently, the moment you enable InstantCommons, you get non-free files together with the free ones whether you want them or not. If we move non-free files away from Commons, the InstantCommons configuration should keep using only commons.wikimedia.org as a repository, which would solve the problem.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
I think you misunderstand what I mean.
What i understand the proposal to be: *Make meta a shared repository for Wikimedia wikis, put logos there instead of commons.
As it stands, instant commons looks for any image on commons, and any image in any shared repository that commons uses (which is currently none, but if meta was added as a shared repository for commons, it would be included in instant commons too). So separating them like that does not immediately solve that issue (although it would probably make it easier to solve in the future).
As an example, many people who want fair use images use EnWikipedia as a ForeignAPIRepo (technical name for instant commons, but you can chose whatever wiki you like). They get both Wikipedia's images, as well as commons' images, since Commons is a shared repo used by enwikipedia.
Cheers, -bawolff