On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works, then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards, toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this conversation.
This starts to be interesting, I think Katherine is making a good point. Is copyright law really so strict, or is Commons taking the strictest interpretation? In this case, we are in a situation where the copyright owner will probably prefer to have is rights "violated" by Wikipedia showing its products than having them "respected" by deleting the file. But we are "the free encyclopedia", and respect of copyright law is one of the principles we're based on, no matter how fair and convenient going round it it can be. Steven makes a good point when saying that it's more likely to be blamed for a mistake than to be thanked for doing 1000 things well, but that's happens everytime in life. Russavia is answering maybe too rudely, but he's perfectly right. Really, when I read copyright claims based on "I own the object", that's nothing to discuss, RTFM is the best answer. Now, we may wonder why our strict policies on copyright, which highlight the absurdities it leads to, have no impact on copyright law (which generally tends to change to more restrictive). EDP's may be partly responsible for this, but probably not so much.
Cruccone