Hoi,
If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular license,
it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for instance print or
do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot claim the same right on
the same object in a higher resolution.
A license is given for what is provided in the way it is provided. What you
can or cannot do with is depends on the license.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
Just to make a clarification:
If you have copyright on a "thing" (with the lack of a better word) in one
medium, you also have it in another. If a text or image is copyrighted in
print, it is copyrighted online. That is what I meant with universal in
this
context, sorry if I was confusing.
Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content truly
re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to "publish"
it
- print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an airplane
and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply.
Of course I am aware of all kinds of problems in copyright legislation and
how it sucks, I know that countries have different laws, one worse than the
other. But solving that would probably be slightly over
stretching ourselves.
Best,
Lodewijk
2011/2/23 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
I don't want get into the splitting hairs on
licenses that is the rest of
this
thread.
However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal.
Copyright
is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal
work-a-day
copyright world people just take for granted that
it would all make sense
if
they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright world
people
pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid having
to
face
how ugly it is under the microscope.
Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people
with
narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient
traditions that translate
poorly
into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not
internationally
speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums.
Birgitte SB
----- Original Message ----
> From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:02:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big
disagreement
with
the Wikimedia usability initiative's software
specifications
I don't get it.
Copyright is universal, so should copyright licenses be. There are
numerous
exceptions to come up with, and we can discuss on
this list into
eternity
about those where Geni can come up with wonderful
examples and Teofilo
will
come up with reasons why they fall outside his
scope. Doesnt the whole
fact
> that we have this discussion proof the point already and remove the
> necessity of such?
>
> The point is that GFDL has impracticalities to some people. Whether
you
also
have these impracticalities does not really
matter, as long as some
people
experience them as such, because it limits
re-use.
The question is, should Wikimedia Commons favor one license over the
other,
> or even discourage the use of some subset of free licenses?
>
> I think that offering a default license is great - it is a major
> simplification of the upload process and increases the odds that
someone
will make
an upload. Because be honest: most authors don't care, they
want
their content uploaded to Wikipedia. If that
requires them to release
some
rights they won't commercialize anyway, they
are likely willing to do
so. No
matter the conditions. If they would be required
to make a silly dance
through walkthrough license schemes, they will just get frustrated and
cut
off the process.
Of course we can have an advanced upload scheme where people like
Teofilo
can pick all complicated licenses they like or
even type their own
personal
release which then can be judged by the community
- but please don't
bother
> the regular uploader with that.
>
> Best,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2011/2/21 Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com>
>
> > 2011/2/21 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
> > (...)
> > >> I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation.
> > >
> > > Well yes thats rather the problem. There are also slideshows with
> > > actual physical slides. I've got some around somewhere.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> >
> > People who work with actual physical slides are unlikely to
> > incorporate contents from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is online. If they
> > bother to create a physical slide out of content from Wikipedia,
they
> > must have a computer with an internet
connection, so it is not
> > difficult for them to upload the equivalent of the slide they
created
> at
Wikimedia Commons, or on imageshack if it is not an educational
> content.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l