----- Original Message ----
From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:07:33 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this
as
the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites.
"Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has.
We
don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM
organizations
that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the
lines
of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to
forthrightly
advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the
content we
curate."
Birgitte SB
Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle.
A GLAM institute doesn't necessarily own the copyrights to all the content they have. A project that contains copyrighted material would not be able to use an "Open Content" badge. "Open Content" has to be restricted to places where it is allowable to make derivatives works for commercial purposes from the content.
Yet it would be nice to have a way to notice a hypothetical GLAM that doesn't attempt to claim copyright on PD works they have merely digitized, freely licenses the derivative materials produced by employees, and makes detailed copyright info on their content accessible. There is a significant difference between an organization who might make such an effort and one that tends to stamp "All material Copyright of [GLAM]" everywhere (whether that claim could possibly be true or not). It would be nice to notice those organizations which are doing what they can with the rights they do control rather than saying "It's shame you accepted those donations of materials 50 years back without securing full copyright control, but with that content you can't join our club."
Birgitte SB