From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] PD-art and official "position of the
WMF"
To: birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com
Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 10:14 PM
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Birgitte SB
<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] PD-art and
official "position of the
WMF"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 9:52 PM
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Cary Bass
<cary(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> From: Cary Bass <cary(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] PD-art
and
> official "position of the WMF"
>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 5:13 PM
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Birgitte SB wrote:
> >
> > > However if both sides of the debate were not
> > compatible with WMF's values and licensing
> policies, I
> > am sure the board would be vocal in pointing out
the
> problem. They spoke up loudly enough when
it.WP
was
using
"with permission" images. So I would
interpret
> Domas saying "I'd really like to trust
the
> community [with preserving WMF values]"
(as
well
as
> silence from the rest of board) to mean
"both
sides of
the debate seem to be inbounds of WMF policy and
values
> right now". it.WP certainly wasn't told
that
their
community was trusted to do as they saw fit to
preserve WMF
> values. They were pretty much told to change
their
policy.
> >
> > Birgitte SB
>
> I've noticed that Italian Wikipedia contains
a
rather
> large number of
> cc-by-nd, cc-by-nc and various different
combinations
> thereof images
> like that[1]. I was not aware of any moment when
the
> Foundation told
> it.wp it wasn't trusted to preserve WMF
values,
and
> feel secure that if
> this took place after the EDP policy went into
effect
then
I would have
heard something about it...can you source that?
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
[1]
I never said it.WP was told it wasn't trusted to
preserve WMF values. (a negative statement)
Rather when the issue was brought up here (just like
the
PD-Art issue) they were NOT told what Commons has
been
told
regarding being trusted to decide the issue
internally. (a
positive statement)
It.WP was told to change it's policy (a positive
statement)
Just wanted to clear that up even though I don't
have
time to dig through the archives. Don't know
if
that
actually clarifies. But not being told what
Commons
has
been told != Being told the negative of what
Commons
has
been told.
Birgitte SB
BTW this did not happen after EDP
I took the time after all. This of course does not support
what you mistakenly believed I had claimed, but rather
supports my actual claim that it.WP was told to change their
policy.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026841.html
Birgitte SB