FYI. Regards, Yann
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: UNESCO International Conference and Exhibition on Knowledge Parks
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:21:40 -0500
De: UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector <ci (at) unesco.org>
On behalf of Mr Abdul Waheed Khan, Assistant Director-General for
Communication and Information at UNESCO, it is my pleasure to inform you
that we are organizing an “*International Conference and Exhibition on
Knowledge Parks*” that will take place in *Doha, Qatar on March 29-31,
2008*.
The conference is jointly organized with the “Qatar Foundation” in close
cooperation with “Bibliotheca Alexandrina”, "Global Knowledge
Partnership" and “Oman’s Knowledge Oasis”. The conference is aimed at
bringing together:
* Policy makers
* Experts in the fields of knowledge management and
innovation\technology parks
* Representatives of the private sector and donor organizations
including development banks
to share views and experiences and to map such experiences for the
benefit of developing countries.
One of UNESCO’s main initiatives, as a follow-up to the WSIS process, is
to /operationalize/ its concept of knowledge societies. The conference
will:
1. Raise /awareness/ on how the ICT-based knowledge park experience
could help in accelerating development;
2. /Review best practices/ in establishing and managing “ICT-based
knowledge parks” in developed countries, with a special interest
in leveraging their potential for developing countries;
3. /Generate partnerships/ between governments, civil society and the
private sector for establishing a strategy to leverage modern ICTs
and the knowledge park experience.
The event will serve as a platform to forge /concrete partnerships/ for
the establishment of knowledge parks/incubators around the world.
The “*concept paper*
<http://www.unesco-ci.org/newsletter/lt/t_go.php?i=1049&e=MTI0MTA0&l=-http--…>”
and a "_*brochure*
<http://www.unesco-ci.org/newsletter/lt/t_go.php?i=1049&e=MTI0MTA0&l=-http--…>_"
elaborate the background, objectives and focus areas of the event
besides answering some key questions about this event.
It is important to note that registration for this conference is free of
charge and that UNESCO, in collaboration with Qatar’s Foundation, will
offer preferential lodging rates to all participants.
Please visit the Conference website at:
http://www.unesco.org/en/knowledgeparkconference/
<http://www.unesco-ci.org/newsletter/lt/t_go.php?i=1049&e=MTI0MTA0&l=-http--…>
to learn more about this event and to register for participation. The
website will be updated regularly and will very shortly give access to
the conference agenda, exhibitors and other related information.
For further information, please contact Mr Tarek Shawki, UNESCO,
Communication and Information Sector ( tel +33.1.45.68.42.82;
t.shawki(a)unesco.org <mailto:t.shawki@unesco.org> ).
*Miriam Nisbet*
Director
Information Society Division
Communication and Information Sector
UNESCO
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
Brianna writes:
> I can't help feeling that continuing this thread is not the best way
> to spend Mike's time.
Don't worry, Brianna -- it's the weekend. I'm only wasting my off-
duty time just now. I'll be back to real work tomorrow morning. :)
--m
Thomas Dalton writes:
> Ok, it only takes one *rich person*. Point stands.
Most rich people got (or stay rich) rich by making smart decisions
about how to invest their money. Investing in a copyright lawsuit with
no obvious remedy is not exactly a smart investment decision. And rich
people can afford lawyers who will tell them just this.
> It's a guess, it doesn't really have much of a basis, just gut
> feeling. I would have called it an estimate otherwise.
Okay, I am grateful for your admission that you have no facts in
support in this point.
> The flaw in Pascal's Wager is that it incorrectly assumes zero cost,
> what's that got to do with anything?
That's actually not the flaw in Pascal's Wager, but why do you assume
there's "zero cost" associated with *not* migrating Wikipedia content
to a version of GFDL that makes it more useful?
> Why would I care about the plaintiff's costs? There are plenty of
> people in this world with more money than sense.
Yes, and by all means we should let our decisionmaking be held hostage
by those with more money than sense -- or at least now that's what I
understand your argument to be.
> Removal of content isn't impossible, it's just impossible without
> causing a great deal of harm to Wikipedia.
Effectively the same argument, in my view. "It's possible, but the
consequences would be infinitely terrible!" Pascal's Wager again.
> As for registering
> copyright, isn't that US law? We're not talking about the US here. Do
> France and Germany have similar requirements?
Well, we'd have a very interesting case if the copyright holder
proceeded in France or Germany to judgment and then tried to enforce
the judgment in a U.S. court. Multinational litigation is a great
hobby for millionaires, I guess, but not for most people.
> It costs the plaintiffs money. Something lots of people have and the
> WMF doesn't.
I'll be on the lookout for millionaire Wikipedians who'd rather
destroy WMF than allow relicensing under a new version of GFDL. I'm
sure that's a very large class of individuals.
--Mike
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> That's actually not the flaw in Pascal's Wager
>
> Yes, it is. Pascal's wager is that you should believe it God because
> it can't do any harm and could do a lot of good. I guess you could go
> with some harm and infinite good, which is exactly equivalent.
You've restated Pascal's Wager correctly, but you haven't stated the
flaw. (To wit, it is unclear that to choose to be a Christian --
instead of, say, a Hindu or a Muslim or an atheist -- is without
negative consequences.)
> If it turns out we can't practically remove the infringing content,
> the only alternative would be closing Wikipedia down. That's as
> terrible as it gets from the POV of Wikipedia...
Imminent death of Wikipedia predicted. Film at 11.
>> You really don't get it, do you? IT ONLY TAKES ONE. Who cares how
> large the class is? As long as it is non-empty, we have a problem.
Thanks for the caps. I suppose it is theoretically possible that your
assessment of the legal threat to Wikipedia is better than mine.
Best regards,
--Mike
Robert Hornung writes:
> BTW, who says that parts of Wikipedia haven't been registered with
> national copyright registration agencies (like the Library of
> Congress)?
Show me some of those registrations, then. I'd be happy to admit I'm
mistaken about this, if I am.
> And I think I could come up with a market value of some of this
> content
> vs. its diminished value due to ignoring GFDL requirements. That it
> wouldn't be easy is true, but it is not wise to assume no value to
> this
> content.
No one is assuming the content is of no value. But I don't know of
any caselaw anywhere in which wiki edits or additions, otherwise
offered for free, have been valued in a court proceeding. Perhaps you
can provide citations?
Best regards,
--Mike
On Nov 25, 2007 8:16 PM, Robert Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
> BTW, who says that parts of Wikipedia haven't been registered with
> national copyright registration agencies (like the Library of
> Congress)?
The sad thing is, it's actually illegal to publish Wikipedia in the
United States *without* depositing a copy with the Library of
Congress. "In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the
exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to
deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the
United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two
phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make
the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not
affect copyright protection" http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
I wonder if section 230 of the CDA would come into place there. Are
deposit requrements a "law pertaining to intellectual property"?
Andrew writes:
> (*) Although, in a real world situation most likely a DMCA takedown
> notice would come first, which would make it much harder to claim that
> you weren't aware of the license revocation.
This would be amusing, since the same people would bring the copyright
action are the ones saying that takedown is impossible.
--Mike
Robert Hornung writes:
> What I'm talking about here is a simply presumption that you don't
> even
> need to involve the FSF in this discussion, that that all you simply
> need to perform is a mass license migration, ignoring the fact that
> all
> of the content is currently licensed under the GFDL.
You must have confused this conversation with some other
conversation. All of the talk of migration here is based in *actual,
ongoing discussions* among FSF, CC, and WMF. FSF would have to agree
to any version of the migration that we're talking about. Were you
unaware of these discussions?
> What I expect that the FSF is going to do with the GFDL is to work out
> some legal language to make it work with Wikipedia a bit better.
Right -- and FSF is considering doing this by creating a CC-compatible
license.
> I certainly don't
> know how you could get GPL/CC-by-SA compatibility to work at all.
Both licenses would have to be revised in order to be harmonized,
everyone agrees.
> I'll add here that I add contributions to Wikimedia projects using my
> actual given name, rather than using a psuedonym. One of the
> reasons I
> do this is explicitly because I do assert copyright over my
> contributions, and to make the point that I can legally claim each
> edit
> I've performed.
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by
you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a
new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
--Mike
[reposted with corrected subject header]
geni writes:
>> If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by
>> you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a
>> new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
>
> And if even a handful of oldtimes want their stuff removed? Have you
> any idea how much work that would involve? While we might have the man
> hours they could be better spent.
Naturally, I have an idea how much time it would involve. One may
reasonably assume that oldtimers who want their stuff removed would
help us comply in removing it. One may reasonably assume that the
hours that they'd otherwise spend would not be spent on Wikipedia
articles (since, according to your scenario, they would object to the
new license that FSF approved and that WMF had implemented). It
wouldn't be very Wikipedian of them to send me demand letters (through
their lawyers) and have me do it. I've been working with volunteer
contributors for a long time (17 years, actually), so I have an idea
about how well asking for their help in meeting their own concerns
would work. (It would work pretty well.)
But the fantasy here is in supposing that there's an option that
*doesn't* require additional labor. If nothing changes, and if the
current GFDL remains the paradigm, immense amounts of work in
compliance with that license's more onerous terms will be required --
man hours that could be better spent.
That's why it's important to remain focused on the fact that it is
possible to provide a copyleft scheme that is consistent with the
values of GFDL but does not require application of a license designed
for GPL-code-oriented software manuals to wiki content. The only
question is, do we care enough about the projects' primary mission to
ensure that the information in them becomes, and stays, maximally
available to everyone in the world?
--Mike
Robert Hornung writes:
> Not to be over critical here, but you weren't very clear in the
> parts I
> was responding to that this was a discussion strictly about the GFDL.
Well, I wouldn't say that was an accurate statement either. What we
have is three sets of stakeholders -- FSF, CC, and WMF -- trying to
come up with harmonized license that would qualify as (a) a revision
of GFDL and also as (b) a revision of CC-BY-SA that would (c)
facilitate the sharing of, inter alia, Wikipedia content.
> At least you have a chance here, Mike, to respond to what I'm
> saying and trying to diffuse this, instead of trying to stop a
> slashdot
> story that says "Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia
> Foundation, suggests that Wikipedia may not be using the GFDL any
> more". Gee, that would be a horrible headline, and one that I hope
> doesn't get written.
We've been saying from the beginning that we've been in discussions
with FSF about a revised license. The only relevant revisions FSF has
authority to approve are revisions of GFDL. Now, this topic is
certainly complex, but I don't think this particular point is. I
believe that most people who have been following the topic have
understood this point, especially given my statements early on that
FSF must approve any revised license that we've been talking about.
Slashdot doesn't concern me that much, since if they're linking to a
journal article, it means we'll have been talking to a journalist who,
presumably, will talk to sources at FSF as well.
> Mind you, I'm glad that you are involved with the Free Software
> Foundation in terms of trying to address problems that Wikipedia users
> (and other Wikimedia users) are having with the GFDL.
Thanks. I think the problem here has not been how I've been
representing the issue so much as how it has been reinterpreted by
some I would like to call "the GFDL conservatives," who believe that
any discussions that include working with Creative Commons are
inherently suspect, since not all CC licenses are copyleft the way
GFDL is. But CC's goal was less to create a total copyleft regime in
all instances than it was to give authors a new framework in which to
decide more self-consciously which rights they want to free up and
which rights they want to retain. I think of CC as a descriptive
language limited to rights in copyright. What we're discussing is how
to (a) evolve GFDL to better handle wiki content, and (b) how to
express that evolved GFDL in CC terms.
> Keep up the good work, and I hope that you can help make a
> positive difference here.
Thanks. Me too.
--Mike