Just FYI :-)
The German Verein has just received a legal opinion they ordered some
time ago, concerning various legal issues for wikipedia and German law.
It turns out that, according to the legal opinion, German law prohibits
the collection of quotes, or quotes as such, if they are not used in a
context.
That would mean the German wikiquote project's legal status is shaky at
best. (IANAL)
The German PDF with the legal opinion is at [1], and as wiki code at [2].
Magnus
[1] http://www.wikimedia.de/files/Rechtsfragen_Maerz_2005.pdf
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rechtsfragen_M%C3%A4rz_2005
Hi,
in response to my appointment as Chief Research Officer of the Wikimedia
Foundation, I have put together a page describing this role, as well as
a potential larger Wikimedia Research Team that I want to form. Please see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Team
for details. To the Board: The proposal is largely unchanged from the
version I sent you, but it includes a note about what I call
"semi-official titles". I suggest therein that members of the Team can,
internally, use certain titles like "WRT Survey Coordinator." Please -
and that goes for non-Board members as well ;-) - let me know how you
feel about this idea, I think it could help reduce the impression that
the "Chief Research Officer" holds special authority over the other
members, and generally motivate people to join and work in certain roles.
The page includes a list of individuals I'd like to invite to join the
team; if you feel that anyone is missing from that list, please add
them. I will extend personal invitations soon, but if you see your name
on the list right now, please do indicate if you're interested (just
strike through or remove your name if you're not). Of course, if you
yourself are interested and not listed there, feel free to add yourself
to the list of members right away. There's no application procedure --
we can always deal with problems as a team if there are any.
I'm copying this to wikitech-l, as I want to encourage the developers to
take a look at the above page. I want to ensure you that at no point
will anyone try to tell volunteers what to do, or what code to accept,
and any assignment to developers paid by Wikimedia will have to be made
by the Board: the Team only gives recommendations. I also absolutely
want to encourage any interested developers to join; if there are any
conflict of interest issues, we can deal with them as they arise. I have
mainly not listed developers in my list of proposed members because my
intuition is that most of them are too busy to get involved, but I'd be
happy to be proven wrong on that count.
I'm sure that some of you will be skeptical about the usefulness of a
systematic research effort: In the open source world, code is everything
and words are often considered meaningless. However, I believe strongly
that analysis should precede implementation, and that volunteer
development can be combined in useful ways with targeted, task-oriented
coding. The Research Team also has other roles, but see the page on Meta
for details.
All best,
Erik
I want to express my gratitude for all of the thoughtful responses to my post yesterday ("Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews"). I very much think the topic is an absolutely central one, and I guess I was bothered when it looked like it was just going to slide by and be ignored, or get a passive response of "let's see what the community does" (if anything).
Of all the responses (they were all fascinating), the one I thought was exceptionally perceptive was that of Tim Starling. Tim was 100% right in the distinction he drew between "free speech" in its "free software" context, as used by Richard Stallman, versus its normal political meaning (e.g. in the context of the constitutions of many nations). As Tim pointed out, Stallman's usage is based upon an analogy to the political meaning, but they are not the same. I hadn't thought enough about the distinction beforehand.
Tim writes that Wikimedia has always supported "free speech" as used in Stallman's analogy, but not "free speech" in its usual meaning. The question is whether this is completely true. It is true that endorsing the former meaning (Stallman's) does not *necessarily* imply endorsing the latter meaning. However, it is equally true that endorsing the former strongly suggests endorsing the latter as well, and many or most Wikimedia users probably assume that this is the case, and not wrongly. So it is a strong implication, but has never been made an explicit policy. What I suggest is that we formally honor the implication by making it explicit policy.
Anthere thought that I suggested the board was actively opposed to Chinese Wikinews. I never meant that, and apologise if I was not clear. What I meant was exactly what Anthere wrote, namely that the board is waiting for a clearer community decision. And that attitude is exactly what I am suggesting be changed.
I guess it is relevant pointing out that I have a personal relationship to this whole issue. In my real-life, over the past 6 years, I have been privileged to work on educational and cultural programs side-by-side with extraordinary people (some of them known worldwide) who were persecuted by totalitarian regimes and stood up to them. All of these people agree on one thing, which is relevant to Anthere's points: When it comes to an environment where speech is repressed, one cannot talk about "the will of the community" in an ordinary sense. On the contrary, to just leave things up to the community in question *is by definition* to take a stance *against* those who want to express their views but cannot do so.
That is why this whole issue goes way beyond waiting for a clearer consensus from the community, and to the guts of what Wikimedia stands for.
Do we really want "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"? If so, this implies doing so without making exceptions for languages or countries in which the expression of opinion is curtailed. So (to return to Tim) this is deeply implied by the current policies and self-image of Wikimedia. Let's make it explicit!
I suggest the following:
Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech" in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing or proposed Wikimedia project."
In the future it might not just be China. There are many other contries in the world that do not allow a free press. Or it might be financial corporations. Adopting a clear policy on censorship now (beginning with Chinese Wikinews) will set things in the right direction for the future as well.
Dovi
foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org wrote:
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner(a)wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Erik Moeller)
2. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Tim Starling)
3. Re: wikiholidays (Cormac Lawler)
4. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Andre Engels)
5. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Marco Krohn)
6. Chinese wikinews and fundamentals (Anthere)
7. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi)
8. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi)
9. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (David Gerard)
10. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Robin Shannon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 09:39:15 +0200
From: Erik Moeller
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <4275D923.2080609(a)gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Anthere:
> This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy
> and the fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation
> should NOT be taken into account... or we decide it is important, but
> require clearer community support. Not so easy to all agree on what
> should be done :-)
Dovi makes an important point which I also made in my "State of the
Wiki" summary, which is that there are millions of Chinese speakers who
would not be affected by censorship in mainland China. So, effectively,
there are two communities: one that would feel the censorship, and one
that wouldn't. The question is, should lack of support in one of them be
sufficient to deny the project to the other?
Regards,
Erik
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 17:43:41 +1000
From: Tim Starling
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese
> Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was
> reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free
> projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and
> "free speech"?
I think you're getting actual free speech confused with the paradoxical
terminology used by Richard Stallman to describe software with
restricted rights of use and distribution. Wikimedia supports the latter
but has never supported the former. Rightly or wrongly, Wikimedia
projects have been complicit in censorship of various kinds. I don't
think the discussion of censorship is aided by conflating these two
concepts.
-- Tim Starling
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 08:55:33 +0100
From: Cormac Lawler
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikiholidays
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/2/05, Anthere wrote:
> Hello
>
> I will be away (with no phone, no computer, no internet and likely no
> watch since I do not wear any) from next wenesday till tuesday the 10th.
> I will be in Agadir (Marocco) and surroundings.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anthere
A *real* holiday! Bon voyage..
Cormac
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:01:51 +0200
From: Andre Engels
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <6faf39c9050502020111bb4769(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/2/05, Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.
Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I
MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free
software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free
software? In that case I agree with not including it. Or is it used,
but do we say that's illegal? In that case I still think we should
shut up and just allow it. The issue should be availability, not
politics. Especially not politics that noone else seems to care about.
Andre Engels
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:02:43 +0200
From: Marco Krohn
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <200505021202.43502.marco.krohn(a)web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Monday 02 May 2005 11:01, Andre Engels wrote:
> Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I
> MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free
> software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free
> software?
FWIW: SuSE as well as RedHat removed the mp3 codecs from their recent
distributions.
best regards,
Marco
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 04:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthere
Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews and fundamentals
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <20050502115509.58720.qmail(a)web41804.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>However, you also argue that till now, many chinese have asked for the wikinews and that we
>>are denying them a useful project. So... you fall back on an argument based on user >>request...""This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy and the >>fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation should NOT be taken into >>account... or we decide it is important, but require clearer community support. Not so easy >>to all agree on what should be done :-)"
>Thanks for your reply, Anthere! (That was fast, I was just about to go offline.)
Hello ;-)
>As far as I understand, normally when there is enough interest in a language version of >Wikinews, the language is launched.
>That is normal policy, so I have not fallen back on "community" in my argument.
It is "normal" policy only as far as "normal" indicates a "habit" and that this habit is supported. Note that the fact something is usually done does not mean it will be done forever.
Example : if you noticed, the "freedom" to open new wikipedia languages is actually more restricted today than it was in the past. Typically, we try not to be hasty in decisions regarding sublanguages versions, or artificial languages. It is very likely a language such as Klington could not be launched today. Why so ? Because what was once a "habit" (a sort of policy then) has changed.
Why did it changed ?
Mostly because many users expressed their disapproval with regards to some languages or sub languages. And felt it impacted the perception our audience could have of our work.
>Rather, the point is that *not* to act on normal policy here conflicts with a fundamental policy >of freedom.
>What you hint at is a slightly different issue, one which makes the *discussion* a bit more >"tricky" as you say, but not the gut issue.
>Namely: What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be a way not just >to express interest in building one, but also to vote against one? Intuitively, the answer is >"no", because anyone who doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply >doesn't have to!
>I understand that this latter question caused problems for the French Wikinews, though I >don't know the details.
>However, whatever happened with French Wikinews is connected only to the secondary >policy question, namely, should the policy for creating new languages, when the languages >are legitimate Wikimedia languages, also allow for opposition? Though I think in normal >circumstances probably not, this is completely unconnected to Chinese Wikinews!
>My point is to completely disengage the two issues: Whether or not "opposition" should be >allowed to creating a new language in a project is one question, and it is a completely >legitimate question (though I personally think the answer should be "no" in normal >circumstances).
You make a very good point here.
I would like to make a precision which might have escaped you. In your previous mail, you seem to consider the Foundation as being in sole responsability of the project not being started.
It is not really fair to say the project does not currently exist JUST because the Foundation opposed it. At some point, the chinese decided to express their desire that the project exist and voted. Whether people should be allowed to oppose or only to express support is a different issue; but generally, on wikipedia, people are allowed to oppose things. I think freedom of speech is a bit impaired if people are only allowed to support or to abstain. But well... anyway, the result of the chinese vote is .... unconclusive if one counts both support and opposition.
Since it was unconclusive, the board was asked to take the decision for the chinese community. This step in itself is interesting. Should we necessarily have the role of taking a decision when others can not find a consensus themselves ? Should it be our responsability ?
In any cases, we were requested to decide for others :-)
And just as others have been inconclusive, we have not been able to reach an agreement either :-) You say we oppose it... while amongst ourselves,
* one did not answer
* one opposed
* one thought the decision should be global community one
* one thought the decision should be local community one
* one supported
However, if the chinese community had globally supported it, there is no doubt in my mind that the above opinions voiced would not have mattered.
>But when such "opposition" is based on the threat or fear of censorship - there cannot even >be a question at all. Censorship is not a valid reason to oppose a Wikimedia project, if the >project stands
As explained above, our position is not opposition.
Which leaves the question : should it be a fundamental rule ? And should we enforce it ?
Ant
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:18:28 +0100
From: Timwi
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi.
I haven't seen the original discussion about a Chinese Wikinews, so this
is the first time I hear why it was disallowed.
If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you
are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by
censoring it yourself?...
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:21:16 +0100
From: Timwi
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dovi Jacobs wrote:
>
> What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be
> a way not just to express interest in building one, but also to vote
> against one? Intuitively, the answer is "no", because anyone who
> doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply doesn't
> have to!
Taking as an example the infamous Klingon Wikipedia, it was pretty clear
that a majority of people felt they were entitled to "vote against" it,
even though the argument you mentioned had already been brought up at
the time.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 00:12:13 +1000
From: David Gerard
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <20050502141213.GQ10417(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Timwi (timwi(a)gmx.net) [050502 23:19]:
> If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you
> are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by
> censoring it yourself?...
And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the
world ...
Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the
US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language
projects? Of course it wouldn't.
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 02:28:08 +1000
From: Robin Shannon
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <623d733805050209281a7185ab(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/3/05, David Gerard wrote:
>
> And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the
> world ...
>
> Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the
> US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language
> projects? Of course it wouldn't.
>
>
> - d.
This isnt quite a fair comparision. It ignores the massive difference
in population. Britain is about 50 million people out of over a
billion english speakers. Mainland China is over a billion chinese
speakers out of a populaiton of one point something billion speakers.
paz y amor,
[[wikinews:User:The bellman]]
--
hit me:
jab me:
This work is released into the public domain.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4
*******************************************
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
I'm forwarding this to Foundation-l since Wikisource has no list of
its own yet. Is anyone able to help with this issue or provide
comments on it please?
Angela
---- Forwarded message from tanter <tanter(a)tarleton.edu> ----
Date:
From: tanter
To: board
Cc:
Reply-To:
Subject: [Ticket#: 126217-FW] Emily Dickinson poems
> Hello. On your site, you have posted poems by Emily Dickinson at this
> URL:
> http://wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Emily_Dickinson. You need to be aware
> that
> these poems are NOT in the public domain. Harvard University owns the
> copyright to all of Emily Dickinson's poems published in the 1955 and
> later
> editions of her poetry. The editions from the 1890s are public domain
> but the
> ones you seem to have posted are from the Harvard edition. I haven't had
> time
> to go through them all, but I suggest you have an editor review this
> because
> you may be violating copyright.
>
>
>
>
>
---- End forwarded message ----
I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and "free speech"?
While neutrality (NPOV) is a central policy at Wikimedia (and probably its very best policy!), the Wikimedia Foundation is not neutral about *everything*. There are some things about which it takes a very clear stance, and one of those things is freedom.
When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.
On a practical level, the decision may have been more about promoting Ogg Vorbis that about real legal worries about MP3. But that is valid as well. Personally, I agree completely with Jimbo's principled decision to disallow MP3. That is because "free content" is a fundamental, non-negotiable policy of Wikimedia.
For details, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sound#File_formats and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/011514.html.
When it comes to the Chinese Wikinews, however, the Wikimedia Foundation has not stood up (so far) for free content.
Here the problem is not "free beer" but "free speech." To dely or deny setting up *any* Wikimedia project because of the fear or threat of censorship is something that the Foundation should be ashamed of. This is not a "community" issue, and to call it such is to misrepresent the problem. This is an issue about the fundamental policies of Wikimedia.
Do we really believe in free speech? Or is the only policy Wikimedia really cares about one of "free beer" (i.e. in the case of Ogg Vorbis, the legal technicalities of open source software)? Open software is terribly important, but it is no more important that providing an outlet for people to write free news stories in Chinese.
Far more than enough users have already requested the Chinese project. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition#Chinese.28zh.29. Some are mainland Chinese, others are part of the Chinese diaspora numbering tens of millions, people who have no worries about government censorship. All have been jointly denied, up to now, a useful project, only because of fears of censorship.
Are those fears justified? Perhaps. But the more relevant question is: Even if the fears are justified, does that allow Wikimedia to be untrue to its value of "free" projects (which includes "freedom of speech")? Furthermore, because *some* Chinese users fear censorship, should the project be delayed or denied to all?
This is also an issue of power. Yes, power. Do we believe in our own strength? Wikimedia has become, quite unexpectedly, a very well-known, well-respected, and influential organization all over the world. That means that even if the threats censorship are real, and even if there is some censorship in the short term, there is every reason to believe that such censorship will not stand for long. Just as blocking was lifted from the Chinese Wikipedia, it will be lifted, eventually, from Wikinews. The Chinese government will not be able, for long, to justify its opposition to Wikimedia projects. But we have to believe in ourselves, and in the fundamental value of free speech.
To conclude (and I apologize for this being so long), Wikimedia today is a project that is "free" as in free beer. But as long as Chinese Wikinews is delayed or denied, Wikimedia is *not* free as in free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation must take an absolutely clear, non-negotiable position that the fear or threat of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with any existing or proposed Wikimedia Project. "Free speech" is no less important that "free beer."
Dovi Jacobs
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Dovi Jacobs schreef:
> I suggest the following:
>
> Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech" in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing or proposed Wikimedia project."
If I understand you correctly, you say that Wikimedia projects
shouldn't be censored in any way. But isn't censorship a very
important part of (at least) Wikipedia? Since all POV remarks in
articles are consistently removed. We only allow NPOV contributions.
Isn't that censorship as well?
Sincerely,
Fruggo
What do you think about promotion Wiki in global media by send info
about two millions Wikipedia articles? It (2M) will be perhaps first
half of July or end of June. IMHO this promotion will be good before
Wikimania 2005.
Przykuta
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> Also it would be very important for wikipedia to provide its own
> license and to allow it to evolve. As a policy matter, I don't
> believe it's really safe to leave your legal needs within the hands
> of others like we did with the GNU/FDL (and it would be the same
> problem with CC).
I'm not sure that a wholly new license, especially one unique to
Wikipedia, is such a good idea. In the software world, there are already
many complaints about the existence of too many "open source" licenses.
The problem may not be quite as great outside of software, but even
sorting through just the options available from Creative Commons can be
a little challenging, and they heard some concerns about license
proliferation when announcing their new CC-Wiki license (Lessig says
it's different "brand" rather than a different license).
I think it would be better for us to focus on figuring out how to revise
the GFDL, including working up draft proposals ourselves as appropriate.
While it's occasionally suggested that there are ongoing talks with FSF
and/or CC, perhaps we sometimes expect there's more going on than there
really is. Jimbo would hardly have the time to be focusing on these
issues constantly, and it's not his field of expertise (the same is true
of Richard Stallman, for that matter). Actually generating ideas for
them to consider might yield more results.
However, I think branching out completely on our own would require too
great an investment of resources. Achieving absolute independence is an
appealing sentiment, but the FSF and CC have experience and
understanding in this area that would be valuable for us to draw upon.
Working with other organizations on these issues also contributes to
being a responsible member of the larger free-software/content community.
--Michael Snow
Delirium wrote:
>> Does anyone know of collaborative projects that have actually
>> switched licenses entirely, even in the software world?
>
> Mozilla did, and it was a huge project with thousands of
> contributors. They basically started emailing people asking for
> permission to do the change, raised some publicity so hopefully some
> people they couldn't find email addresses for would become aware of
> the change, and then started replacing/rewriting code from people who
> they couldn't contact or who didn't give permission.
>
> For more, see their relicensing FAQ:
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
Thank you, that was quite interesting to read through - if there are
other similar cases, I'd love to hear about them.
One significant obstacle, of course, is that we have a lot of anonymous
editors where it's effectively impossible to trace the person who holds
the copyright (as opposed to the computer from which they made the
contribution). I'm guessing that Mozilla didn't have this problem. We
probably also have a much larger volume of people who are not
contactable via email, since we don't require an email address in order
to sign up for an account.
Mozilla has been at this since 2001, apparently, and it looks like they
still have some non-relicensed code. They also inherited the right to
relicense all Netscape-owned code, which is presumably still a
considerable portion. The Wikimedia Foundation's ability to relicense
content previously owned by Bomis would not get us anywhere near that.
And while I don't know how many people have actually contributed code to
Mozilla, I would guess that we're on a different level in terms of sheer
numbers. I have this sneaking suspicion that the relicensing process
would not scale very well, shall we say.
The possibility of rewriting content we're unable to relicense is
interesting to consider. It strikes me that one potential use for Magnus
Manske's article validation tool would be to flag revisions when an
article has been rewritten so as to remove the content that we can't
secure permission to relicense. But anyway, if people are serious about
actually relicensing, the longer they wait, the harder it will be.
--Michael Snow
Although many people do wonderful for Wikimedia and its projects, I
would like to formally recognize a few of those people today. Daniel
Mayer has had the title of Chief Financial Officer for the last year,
and has done some amazing work in this role, often despite being in
the difficult situation of not having access to the Foundation's bank
account. I would like to invite him to continue in this role for the
following year, with the promise of getting him better access to the
data, by changing banks if necessary. (Don't get me started about
stupid online banking systems!)
In addition, there are a number of positions where it would be
extremely useful to the Foundation to have a key person the Board can
maintain contact with, and as such, I would like to appoint the
following people, subject to them being happy with these positions:
Chief Technical Officer (servers and development): Brion Vibber
Hardware Officer: Domas Mituzas
Developer Liaison: Jens Frank
Chief Research Officer: Erik Möller
Grants Coordinator: Danny Wool
Press Officer: Elian
Lead Legal co-ordination: Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Angela has written some brief descriptions of these roles at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Official_position#New_positions_proposed
but the exact tasks are not yet defined, and will more likely become
apparent as each of these people makes the role their own.
I would encourage these people to work closely with, and even help to
formulate committees within Wikimedia. Sj has made a very good
suggestion at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Official_position#Special_Interest_Grou…
for a number of Special Interest Groups. These appointed positions do
not have any special power within any of those groups, but serve as a
point of contact to the Board, and to the community, to ensure that
information is flowing between all concerned parties within their own
fields of expertise. The appointment is a reflection of the work these
people are already doing in these areas, and should not be seen as a
disincentive to others to become involved. (To the contrary, I hope
that formal recognition and appreciation can serve as a further
incentive, not that we really need a lot of that since everyone is
working so hard already!)
-- Jimbo