On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 23:17, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine
by
me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the "free knowledge" aspect of our vision & mission statements might be a little tough to persuade, but if you want to try, have at it.
The more querulous Commons admins are treating "this is not provably 100% URAA safe" as equivalent to fair-use free-for-all, often seguing between the two in the same email. This is equivocation of a particularly unhelpful sort. Speaking as an unreconstructed Stallmanite, I say "what on earth."
David, I'm not sure how your message is supposed to connect to mine? * I'm not an admin on Commons, not sure if you intended to lump me in there * I have no position on URAA and don't think it's particularly germane to this topic
My comments in this thread have, I think quite clearly and consistently, been in response to George's proposal of "Uncommons," a site which would host copyright materials for the purpose of fair use. URAA files would not be a particularly interesting subset of the copyrighted files that could live on such a site (or, for that matter, on Flickr etc, in the absence of a DMCA complaint from a rights-holder.)
So -- who was this addressed to, if not me? What did my message have to do with URAA, or with querulous admins?
Pete