From: Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right venue for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit commercial reuse.
In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing policy of Wikimedia projects.
I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and rights to go to court over your use of the work.
And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they own: so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.
Best, Yury.
The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil and Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe we as a Movement should have some sort of plan or strategy to fight that - and never indulge in accepting NC as a valid license for the Wikimedia projects, as IMO it really hinders our mission of a free and open project.
Paulo
Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com escreveu no dia segunda, 20/05/2019 à(s) 07:28:
From: Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right
venue
for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that
permit
commercial reuse.
In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing policy of Wikimedia projects.
I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and rights to go to court over your use of the work.
And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they
own:
so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.
Best, Yury.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Do you think it might be a common misconception, perhaps?
On May 20, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil and Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe we as a Movement should have some sort of plan or strategy to fight that - and never indulge in accepting NC as a valid license for the Wikimedia projects, as IMO it really hinders our mission of a free and open project.
Paulo
Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com escreveu no dia segunda, 20/05/2019 à(s) 07:28:
From: Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right
venue
for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that
permit
commercial reuse.
In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing policy of Wikimedia projects.
I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and rights to go to court over your use of the work.
And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they
own:
so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.
Best, Yury.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Benjamin
There appear to be misconceptions about the CC licences in general. They may be free in the sense of no money changing hands but that does not mean they are free in the sense of being without conditions or restrictions. The CC-BY-SA licences that Wikipedia uses allow for use of material on certain conditions, including attribution. The NC licences impose additional conditions. But in either case conditions are imposed.
In passing, and more within the orbit of this discussion group, we may note that while there are conditions on the use of CC-BY-SA material, they are routinely violated. As has been noted previously, Amazon does not provide the attribution required when it reuses Wikipedia material via Alexa. Strictly speaking I suppose the remedy is in the hands of the individual volunteers as owners of the rights. It is regrettable that the Foundation has not chosen to support them in this.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:22 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think it might be a common misconception, perhaps?
On May 20, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil
and
Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe we as a Movement should have some sort of plan or strategy to fight that
and never indulge in accepting NC as a valid license for the Wikimedia projects, as IMO it really hinders our mission of a free and open
project.
Paulo
Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com escreveu no dia segunda, 20/05/2019 à(s) 07:28:
From: Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right
venue
for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that
permit
commercial reuse.
In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing policy of Wikimedia projects.
I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and rights to go to court over your use of the work.
And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they
own:
so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.
Best, Yury.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org