On 21/02/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the
current draft of the
resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
comments and suggestions.
This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
: the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
or Wikisource, and a language.
This excludes Meta, Species, wwwwikisource, MediaWiki, Foundation
wikis which don't have language versions. And did you notice you used
the word "project" in the definition of the word "project"? We have a
major ambiguity problem here. :)
Also excludes Commons but that seems covered below.
# In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons, each project
community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
Define 'machine readable format'. (Or maybe there is a definition I don't
# Such EDPs must be minimal.
Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of
such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or
even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person
who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and
even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I
know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who
dislike fair use too.
#* The Foundation resolves to assist project
communities in need of an
EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
to coordinate this process.
This is great. Put this in bigger font and re-emphasise to the
projects who are worried.