Is there any chance I could get some input on the issues I raised? Or does it take 200 messages to get Board attention? :P
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027549.html
Re: Kat's statement that "[N]o project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons[...]"
*in interpreting country-specific "public domain" laws, Commons has on occasion chosen to interpret the laws in a more restrictive way than local projects. In such cases, the local project sometimes chooses to keep their less restrictive interpretation and transfer the images from Commons to that project. (Specific example: IT.wp and {{PD-Italy}}) * German logos - DE.wp regards the threshold of originality for copyright to apply as much higher than Commons and EN.wp in general, meaning that many logos Commons deletes as "copyrighted", DE.wp keeps as "PD-ineligible, although trademarked"
Also, the wording in Kat's statement implies that "Foundation policy" can be equated with "licenses allowed on Wikimedia Commons". One one hand, the WMF is unlikely to want to start handing out an explicit list of acceptable licenses, so that is understandable. But on the other it means that the nuances of Foundation policy are being decided on one wiki and having conseuqences for all wikis. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the first time this happens, I think. If this is correct, will the WMF be supplying some legal assistance from time to time for Commons? Or - ?
cheers Brianna