>
>
>> Thank you for your support. I would like to again
>invite all interested
>> parties (especially developers, but also writers,
>photographers etc.) to
>> add themselves on the above page, so that we can
>together move this
>> project forward after MediaWiki 1.3 has reached a
>stable state. As the
>> above proposal states, I hope that we can also
>implement single sign-on in
>> one fell swoop with the Commons itself, which would
>be one important step
>> to bring the individual Wikimedia projects closer
>together.
>
>
>>I am still willing to help and aid in this project.
>>However, as things
>>look now, the only help I can offer you is to
>>discontinue any plans I
>>myself have in this direction until you are ready.
>
>>One time there was just the English Wikipedia, then
>>other languages
>>were made. I have the feeling that I'm like someone
>>wanting to set
>>up another language and getting the answer that it's
>a >good idea, but
>>that in half a year there will be a new software with
>>language links
>>and the possibility to have an interface adaptable to
>>languages, and
>>I just wait for that.
>
>>It's not that I don't like your plans. I do. And when
>>the time
>>comes, I'll join in. For now I'll just count my
>>losses. And wonder
>>why you might succeed and I do not. Is it because you
>>are a
>>developer and I'm not? Because your plans are grand
>>and mine
>>down-to-earth? Because I'm not brazen enough? Anyway,
>>I lost.
>>Again.
>
>>Andre Engels
>
>André. Pause réflexion. Un vrai leader évite de
>perpétuellement marcher sur les pieds des autres. Il
>leur laisse de la place pour s'exprimer, parfois même
>il s'efface pour laisser les autres s'occuper d'un
>projet qui leur tient à coeur. Il évite de créer des
>rancoeurs :-) Enfin, juste ma triste opinion. ant
>
C'est bien de voir que tout au moins quelqu'un se souvient de la liste
correcte pour discuter ces sujets. Est-ce que tous les autres oublient
parce que en ce moment Jimbo ne reçoit pas les messages de cette liste-ci ?
--Michel Neige
EasyTimeline by Erik Zachte is an extension for creating graphical
timelines with clickable links. WikiHiero by Guillaume 'Aoineko' Blanchard
is for rendering hieroglyphs. Both are now enabled on all Wikimedia wikis.
As per our earlier extension syntax vote, EasyTimeline uses the <timeline>
syntax, WikiHiero uses the <hiero> syntax.
You can read more about them here:
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyTimelinehttp://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiHiero
To my knowledge, MediaWiki is the only wiki software which supports such
functionality. It should make our wikis interesting even in the highest
academic circles.
Although EasyTimeline can generate SVG output, only PNG output is
currently supported. In the future, we hope to offer SVG as a user
preference.
Regards,
Erik
I have been put words in my mouth here that I never said. I was only
reacting to Mav who claimed that free meant copyleft, thus claiming
that CC-BY or PD is _not_ free, or at least _less_ free than copyleft.
NEVER did I claim that copyleft was NOT free. All I claimed was that
things that are NOT copyleft can still be free.
Andre Engels
"Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> schrieb:
> Andre Engels wrote in part:
>
> >Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:
>
> >>I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
>
> >Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.
>
> >"You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name" is
> >more free than "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention
> >my name and give others the same rights and obligations".
>
> The Free Software Foundation would argue that the final condition
> is not a significant restriction on the downstream user's freedoms.
> Thus they would say that CC-by and GNU FDL ''are'' free, period.
> And certainly the latter condition makes it more certain
> that future derived works will in fact be free at all.
>
> I think that it's healthier to take a less absolute stance.
> There is (or was, I don't know the latest developments)
> a big debate in the Debian project about whether the GNU FDL
> is free when it's combined with Invariant Sections.
> (For example, the FSF's own GNU emacs manual has an IS.
> Certainly the FSF believes that this is free,
> but many people in the Debian community disagree.)
> What they ''should'' be able to agree on, to get started,
> is that the GNU FDL is ''less'' free when used with an IS;
> then they can start discussing whether it's free ''enough''.
> But since most debaters take an absolutist position
> on the criteria for freedom, they can't even get started.
>
> So an unlicensed copyright is less free than GNU FDL with an IS,
> and GNU FDL with an IS is less free than GNU FDL without an IS,
> and GNU FDL without an IS is (arguably [*]) less free than CC-by-sa,
> and CC-by-sa is less free than CC-by, and CC-by is less free than PD.
> But on the other hand, there are ''reasons'' for each of the restrictions,
> including reasons that restrictions that may increase freedom overall.
> So the question for any project (GNU, Debian, Wikimedia, etc)
> is not "free or not free" but "how free is free enough"?
> GNU and Debian are answering this differently, and that's OK.
> Within Wikimedia, Wikipedia and Wikinews may answer this differently too!
>
> [*] This has to do with the "overbroad DRM clause" in the GNU FDL.
> It is a subtle point that only the extreme anti-FDL people care about;
> but even so, people should be able to agree that it makes a difference
> to ''relative'' freedom.
>
>
> -- Toby
>
--- Robert Graham Merkel <robert.merkel(a)benambra.org> wrote:
> I wish to propose that images available under *some* of the Creative
> Commons licenses, that offer equivalent (or even more permissive) use
> than the GNU FDL, be permitted to be used in Wikipedia.
>
> The licenses are the:
>
>
> By-attribution license:
> * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
>
> The only requirement to use works create by this license is that you
> must give the author credit.
>
>
> The Attribution-ShareAlike license:
> * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
IANAL but I don't see a problem with that. Many people, such as myself, dual
license our images under both the GNU FDL and CC by-sa. And as you mention the
FDL provides for aggregate works. So if the images are free content and used as
aggregate works, then everything should be OK.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I guess this is my last attempt to talk about
copyright issues in this place before deciding that
- copyright discussions are obviously not interesting
*anyone* here, so are not worth trying to be discussed
since it raises absolutely no interest whatsoever
- or that are not to be discussed in any other place
than on the english wikipedia list (see Tomos
discussion about changing our copyright license,
discussion that is occuring in another place, with the
idea that all wikipedias would follow the english
rules afterwards)
So, I'll ask just another time to be certain.
I must say that I am currently very disappointed by
lack of cooperation on the matter, because I do not
think my question is very difficult for those working
in the wikimedia projects other than wikipedia.
We are setting the foundation status. The current
status are indicating that ALL OF OUR CONTENTS
(wikimedia projects) will be distributed under the
gfdl license.
Should we do that or not ? Should we be less specific
in case some of wikimedia projects are not or wont be
under the GFDL licence, or are we sure that all
content will be under that license or not ?
If this is not the place to discuss this, where is it
please ? Or who should I ask to ???
-------
2 ARTICLE 2 : Buts
Il importe de r�diger un objet large qui mette
l�accent sur le caract�re d�sint�ress�, international,
�ducatif et scientifique de l�association pour
permettre le b�n�fice des dispositions de l�article
200 du code g�n�ral des imp�ts.
Pour contribuer activement � la diffusion, �
l�am�lioration et � l�avancement du savoir et de la
culture francophone internationale, WIKIM�DIA
FRAN�AISE a pour objet le d�veloppement
d�encyclop�dies, de recueil de citations, de livres
�ducatifs et d�autres compilations de documents,
d�information et de diverses bases de donn�es
informatives en langue fran�aise qui ont pour
caract�ristiques :
* d��tre enti�rement gratuits ;
* d��tre disponibles en ligne par les technologies de
l�internet et assimil�es ;
* de disposer d�un contenu qui est modifiable par les
utilisateurs ;
* d�avoir un contenu qui n�est pas prot�g�s par les
dispositions r�glementant la propri�t� litt�raire,
artistique ou industrielle, le cas �ch�ant distribu�
gratuitement dans les conditions d�une licence de
documentation libre du type Free Documentation License
r�dig� par la Free Software Foundation Inc., et
notamment sa branche europ�enne �
http://www.fsfeurope.org/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
"Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> schrieb:
> --- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> > Mav's position, as he is stating it, is more extreme (and simply wrong IMO),
> > since he is claiming (I believe) that a noncopyleft licence like CC-sa
> > is not free to begin with. Still, mav does have a point, as I said here:
>
> If CC-sa = Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license, then I think you
> are confused (or at least made a typo). The CC by-sa is in fact more
> libre/copyleft than the GNU FDL since it does not have provisions for invariant
> sections. Thus its copyleft status is more permanent. The CC-by license is
> merely gratis with the only real requirement being attribution.
It's NOT free, you say? So, I may not use it freely? You DO have a strange
definition of 'free'.
> > So mav can reasonably argue (along with the FSF) that a copyleft licence
> > increases freedom overall, because it enforces freedom for derivative works.
> > But it does not increase the freedom of the ''original'' document --
> > as even the FSF would agree -- and could only decrease ''that'' freedom.
> > (And that was your point, Andre, which I agree with.)
>
> Decrease that freedom? How when anything from a derivative work can be
> reincorporated back into the original? In what way does that decrease the
> freedom of the original document?
By restricting how it may be used. What other way could there be to decrease
freedom?
Andre Engels
"Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> schrieb:
> > What is the difference between free and copyleft?
> > Fundamentally, a document is free if ''it'' may be used freely:
> > freely read, freely copied, freely modified, and freely distributed
> > (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
> > or <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>).
> > A document is copyleft if ''its derivatives'' may be used freely.
>
> When I say 'free' I mean free as in cost and free as in freedom.
Well, then the non-copyleft free licenses should fall under that
definition as least as much as copyleft ones. There's no difference
in cost (the only difference would be non-commercial licenses, which
neither of you seem to be advocating), and in freedom they're more
free.
> >...
> > We can have this argument, but let's be clear about what we're arguing over.
> > AFAIK, ''nobody'' is advocating that Wikimedia publish non-free articles.
> > (There is the issue of incorporating fair use items ''within'' articles,
> > such as quotations and images, but that is a different discussion.)
> > The question is whether their freedom must be protected by copyleft.
>
> I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.
"You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name" is
more free than "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention
my name and give others the same rights and obligations".
Andre Engels
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>I have from Alex the US trademark application, which I will be filing
>today.
>
That's very good to hear, my thanks to Alex for handling that.
--Michael Snow
> > Pourquoi faut-il une association ?
Why an associaation ?
Yann said
> I think that a more progressive start, and therefore
> starting early is
> possible.
> Creating an organisation is necessary. For already
> one year, I make speeches
> and talks about Wikipedia without any official
> mandate, but this is already
> awkward and it is becoming very inconvenient.
>
> Je pense qu'une croissance progressive est possible,
> et donc de commencer
> plut�t.
> Cr�er une association est n�cessaire. Depuis un an,
> je fais des conf�rences
> sur Wikip�dia sans aucun mandat officiel, mais cela
> est d�j� embarassant, et
> �a devient vraiment g�nant.
Il est important de signaler Yann, que sur la fr: tout
le monde semble te faire confiance pour ta
participation dans les multiples conf�rences. Je pense
que si tu avais besoin pressant d'un support officiel,
Jimbo te l'apporterait publiquement sans probl�me et
nous aussi.
Cela �tant, dans l'attente d'une association, et ce
pour tous les projects sans association, c'est une des
raisons pour lesquelles mettre en place des positions
officielles au sein de la foundation am�ricaine est
important. Il faut que certains puissent se pr�senter
comme porteur de la parole wikipedia officiellement
pour notre �volution.
I'd like to remind you Yann, that everyone on fr;
trust you for your PR activities. If you had an urgent
need for official support, Jimbo would publicly
brought it I think.
This said, as long as a project does not have an
association, it is very important that the foundation
set a collection of official positions and officially
declare trust for several users. It is important that
we say "we trust these people to speak for Wikimedia"
to the outside. Editors should be trusted to speak for
wikipedia, the foundation should help and not speak
for editors.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Angela wrote:
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>>
>>
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>page.
>
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.
--Michael Snow