Message: 4
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:08:25 +0100
From: Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Proposal for an
allrightsreserved.wikimedia.org website
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikSY-eAR4+T8yyopXXBJc3Q3u2uR2P3OG_e5-VY(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 1 February 2011 22:27, Blurpeace <blurpeace(a)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