Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?

----- Original Message ---- From: mboverload <mboverloadlister(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [[Principality of Sealand]], anyone? On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>

> Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we > can go by US copyright law. The > alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive > position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive > meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of > surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As > obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things > will be. > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton

>>> > In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his >>> > intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the >>> > WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding >>> > resolution would be a much better means. >>> >>> I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board >>> member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not >>> sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as >>> spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the >>> foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal >>> disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was >>> incorrect. >> >> For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July >> 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.