I was sloppy and using shorthand. Commons has differently licensed material on it than PD alone, however, we are restrictive in which licenses are acceptable. That should not be controversial, even to you, Anthony.
On 11/15/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/14/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's GFDLed.
But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.
And therein lies one of the big problems, as what constitutes "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" is much harder to define and explain to people than "copyrighted media".
Simply referring to "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" as "copyrighted" only serves to confuse people more. I hope that's not what was happening here.
Anthony
On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons. Commons is not limited to public domain material.
... permission to stab him, please?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l