I would probably never try to convince somebody about NC license. It sounds pushy and
almost never works, it's like optimizing a process that has a 0.1% output. of course I
can spend less time to do so, and maybe double the effect, but it's still a limited
output.
I prefer to agree with them, build a trust, produce other content with such trust (that is
not related to files of their production) and than, maybe, we face the issue of images.
For example I almost convinced an artist to give me in free license reproductions of his
public artworks that are already destroyed, until a person close to him stopped him (and
he agreed with me prgamatically, I think that he stopped only for sentimental reason)
There are other way to get free files ad they have nothing to do about "being used on
Wikipedia". if you want to be used on Wikipedia, you put it there, in my experience
this is not a critical factor in changing the opinion. For example Wiki Science
Competition gets files also from scientists that would normally use NC, but it's not
really about explaining the license, it's about getting a prize, a visibility and
being part of a network, a strat a discussion about outreach.
Alessandro
Il lunedì 13 luglio 2020, 08:25:39 CEST, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> ha
scritto:
Erik, thanks for posting the essay here. Glad to see the interest in this
topic.
I wrote this because I have found that when somebody asks me about the NC
provision, I often want to point them to a simple webpage (rather than
"reinventing the wheel" every time it comes up). There are some pages out
there (I listed some in the "See also" section), but I have yet to find
somewhere this particular point -- the need of a general license to issue
clear guidance -- articulated anywhere in a concise, accessible way.
I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see that the possibility of
Wikimedia generally accepting NC-licensed work is being discussed. But
apart from that discussion, I think many of you in this discussion have, at
one time or another, wanted to help guide someone toward using a more
permissive license, rather than a NC license.
For those who have, do you have favorite webpages you find helpful to
share? Does this one seem like a useful addition? I'd appreciate any
feedback or constructive edits to this essay; I also think it would be
useful to have some of the other arguments, currently collected in longer
documents, expressed in more "bite-sized" pieces like this, which could be
linked together. Do others agree, and if so, are you inclined to help draft
some complementary pages?
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The question is however as well: how many open
licensed content creators
would switch to NC if they were aware that this would be 'good enough' for
Wikipedia - even if that means in reality only English Wikipedia (but who
cares about other languages) and without actually allowing to build on top
of it?
I have found the argument 'don't use NC because then it can't be used on
Wikipedia' rather convincing in the past. It will not always work, and I
also wish it would convince /more/ organizations. But then, I would also
wish that enwiki wouldn't use fair use exceptions - so maybe I'm not the
benchmark you'd be looking at anyway.
Lodewijk
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes one of the stronger reasons to reject all use
of the NC license is
that
it increases incentives for other organizations
to actually adopt open
licenses. I simply wish that such a position would convince more
organizations. WHO has repeatedly told me that we, as a non-profit, are
already free to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
James
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi James :)
(This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit
on this list.)
We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly
poor due to the reasons
listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy
videos)
less accessible to our readers because we
disallow any such use.
I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
license.
This is a balance between pragmatism and
idealism.
I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
Wikimedia projects?
If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
short-sighted.
Warmly,
Erik
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>