2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
Yes.
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a
repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there has been a
very recent referendum that speaks very directly to the Wikimedia
community's commitment to holding the line on the principles of free
licenses, even in the face of negative practical consequences. That
referendum was the recent proposal to use the MP4 format. When concluded,
more than 300 people had voted against compromising on this principle,
while fewer then 150 voted in favor.[1] Of course there are some
considerations that are specific to that case, but it is useful to consider
now, because the central topic is essentially the same in both cases:
Should we sacrifice free content principles, if that sacrifice will enable
us to distribute more educational content?
The answer was a resounding "no."
The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus of
the Wikimedia community, which values a commitment to free licenses.
Sorry, but this is a strawman argument.
No, these people are not enforcing any consensus.
Actually, they are precisely working against the silent majority in
the case of URAA.
All we need is a bit more of common sense.
I think we could have a tag for borderline cases saying "probably OK,
except some uncertainities".
We already have this for some freedom of panorama issues (FOP), and for URAA.
Then reusers are clearly warned about the situation, and are free to
use the file depending on their own requirements.
Anyway, seeing that these cases are very unlikely to get into legal
trouble, the claim that these cases put our reusers into danger is a
complete bullshit, IMHO.
Regards,
Yann