I'm drafting a Board resolution to clarify the existing resolutions "Licensing policy" and "Access to nonpublic data", as follows:
* Paragraph 1 of Resolution:Licensing policy is clarified: The licensing policy does not apply to any inalienable moral rights associated with a work. * Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
If you have any other suggestions for clarifications or corrections, please make them ASAP.
On 16/05/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Paragraph 1 of Resolution:Licensing policy is clarified: The
licensing policy does not apply to any inalienable moral rights associated with a work.
Does it apply to moral rights codified in a licence, e.g. some of the CC 3.0 licenses? Are those free-enough or not? There's lots of discussions on Commons talk:Licensing, but surely a Commons talk page shouldn't be setting WMF-wide policy on such a matter.
- d.
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- Paragraph 1 of Resolution:Licensing policy is clarified: The
licensing policy does not apply to any inalienable moral rights associated with a work.
Does it apply to moral rights codified in a licence, e.g. some of the CC 3.0 licenses? Are those free-enough or not? There's lots of discussions on Commons talk:Licensing, but surely a Commons talk page shouldn't be setting WMF-wide policy on such a matter.
Only if the license establishes restrictions _beyond_ the existing moral rights. If it merely recognizes whichever rights a jurisdiction grants, I do not see an issue with it.
I'm not convinced that the current CC licenses establish any new restrictions, and those who claim that they do should take that discussion directly to Creative Commons. There is no malicious intent here on the part of CC, and so I don't see why people don't try to work out any issues that there may be directly with the people who _wrote_ the license.
On 16/05/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Only if the license establishes restrictions _beyond_ the existing moral rights. If it merely recognizes whichever rights a jurisdiction grants, I do not see an issue with it.
The text of the license appears to claim such rights outside said jurisdictions.
I'm not convinced that the current CC licenses establish any new restrictions, and those who claim that they do should take that discussion directly to Creative Commons. There is no malicious intent here on the part of CC, and so I don't see why people don't try to work out any issues that there may be directly with the people who _wrote_ the license.
As lovely people as they may or may not be, CC's interests are not our interests.
- d.
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Only if the license establishes restrictions _beyond_ the existing moral rights. If it merely recognizes whichever rights a jurisdiction grants, I do not see an issue with it.
The text of the license appears to claim such rights outside said jurisdictions.
It does not do so in the ported licenses for the jurisdictions that do not have moral rights. And in the unported version, it uses the clause:
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor _or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law_ .."
(Emphasis mine.) I understand this to at least be _intended_ to restrict the scope of the moral rights claims that follow. Whether it does sufficiently accomplish that is open to debate.
As lovely people as they may or may not be, CC's interests are not our interests.
Of course the idea that lawyers could build a social movement hasn't played out that well. But perhaps that was to be expected. ;-)
View CC as a pro bono law firm, not as a social movement. When you have a problem with a document your lawyer gives you, you talk to them.
David Gerard wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Only if the license establishes restrictions _beyond_ the existing moral rights. If it merely recognizes whichever rights a jurisdiction grants, I do not see an issue with it.
The text of the license appears to claim such rights outside said jurisdictions.
Yes it *appears to claim*. I am not a lawyer so I cannot tell you nor do the laypersons that are currently discussing this issue inside the Wikimedia community instead of just directly contacting CC.
By the way I find the energy to find problems in CC 3.0 really disturbing. This motivation should better be used to develope practical solutions to the dilemma of non-compatibility bewteen GFDL and CC-BY-SA. I bet that far the most majority of people interested in free knowledge are not interested such license details - they just want to share knowledge! By the way with CC 3.0 there is an explicit place to list compatible licenses: http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
I'm not convinced that the current CC licenses establish any new restrictions, and those who claim that they do should take that discussion directly to Creative Commons. There is no malicious intent here on the part of CC, and so I don't see why people don't try to work out any issues that there may be directly with the people who _wrote_ the license.
As lovely people as they may or may not be, CC's interests are not our interests.
Of course there are some different interests, and neither CC nor "we" are entities with homogeneous and static oppinions. But the main goal "free information" is the same. Factionalism by searching for differences between CC and Wiki*edia instead of commonalities is counterproductive. I really doubt that the differences of interest between CC and Wikimedia Foundation are as large as the differences of interests withing the Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia project communities.
Greetings, Jakob
On 18/05/07, Jakob Voss jakob.voss@nichtich.de wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Only if the license establishes restrictions _beyond_ the existing moral rights. If it merely recognizes whichever rights a jurisdiction grants, I do not see an issue with it.
The text of the license appears to claim such rights outside said jurisdictions.
Yes it *appears to claim*. I am not a lawyer so I cannot tell you nor do the laypersons that are currently discussing this issue inside the Wikimedia community instead of just directly contacting CC. By the way I find the energy to find problems in CC 3.0 really disturbing. This motivation should better be used to develope practical solutions to the dilemma of non-compatibility bewteen GFDL and CC-BY-SA.
If it upsets you so much that people dare raise concerns about issues of concern, I'm not sure I can help you with that.
The other problem is in fact a different problem.
I bet that far the most majority of people interested in free knowledge are not interested such license details - they just want to share knowledge!
Indeed, which is why CC's attempt to monopolise the idea of such creates practical problems for us right now, as I've outlined on this list previously. I'm not just being querulous for the sake of it.
Of course there are some different interests, and neither CC nor "we" are entities with homogeneous and static oppinions. But the main goal "free information" is the same. Factionalism by searching for differences between CC and Wiki*edia instead of commonalities is counterproductive. I really doubt that the differences of interest between CC and Wikimedia Foundation are as large as the differences of interests withing the Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia project communities.
It's not factionalism - it's flagging real problems that are already causing problems for us.
No, I will not shut up about it.
- d.
Jakob Voss wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Only if the license establishes restrictions _beyond_ the existing moral rights. If it merely recognizes whichever rights a jurisdiction grants, I do not see an issue with it.
The text of the license appears to claim such rights outside said jurisdictions.
Yes it *appears to claim*. I am not a lawyer so I cannot tell you nor do the laypersons that are currently discussing this issue inside the Wikimedia community instead of just directly contacting CC.
By the way I find the energy to find problems in CC 3.0 really disturbing. This motivation should better be used to develope practical solutions to the dilemma of non-compatibility bewteen GFDL and CC-BY-SA. I bet that far the most majority of people interested in free knowledge are not interested such license details - they just want to share knowledge! By the way with CC 3.0 there is an explicit place to list compatible licenses: http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
I'm not convinced that the current CC licenses establish any new restrictions, and those who claim that they do should take that discussion directly to Creative Commons. There is no malicious intent here on the part of CC, and so I don't see why people don't try to work out any issues that there may be directly with the people who _wrote_ the license.
As lovely people as they may or may not be, CC's interests are not our interests.
Of course there are some different interests, and neither CC nor "we" are entities with homogeneous and static oppinions. But the main goal "free information" is the same. Factionalism by searching for differences between CC and Wiki*edia instead of commonalities is counterproductive. I really doubt that the differences of interest between CC and Wikimedia Foundation are as large as the differences of interests withing the Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia project communities.
What's disturbing in this is that Erik's resolution was to amend WMF policy. He certainly has a right to make such proposals, whether or not the Board ultimately adopts the resolution. Now we are talking about proposed changes to Creative Commons policy. Trying to merge CC's interests with ours in these circumstances raises a perception of hidden agendas.
Ec
On 18/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's disturbing in this is that Erik's resolution was to amend WMF policy. He certainly has a right to make such proposals, whether or not the Board ultimately adopts the resolution. Now we are talking about proposed changes to Creative Commons policy. Trying to merge CC's interests with ours in these circumstances raises a perception of hidden agendas.
Erik's not a CC board member, Jimbo is ;-)
Negotiating with organisations like Creative Commons is *absolutely* the right thing for the highest-ups of an organisation to be doing. WMF isn't large enough to have a layer of executives as yet, so the Board taking on the job is entirely appropriate. c.f. also, Erik's liaison with Encyclopedia of Life.
- d.
On 5/16/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not convinced that the current CC licenses establish any new restrictions, and those who claim that they do should take that discussion directly to Creative Commons. There is no malicious intent here on the part of CC, and so I don't see why people don't try to work out any issues that there may be directly with the people who _wrote_ the license.
I took the complaint to the Creative Commons in December when I saw a private draft of the text. My message went unanswered, however the moral rights text was omitted from all the public drafts so I considered the matter resolved.
Apparently it was not. Generally CC's approach to such matters appears to be to advocate whatever they believe will maximize adoption of their licenses and brand recognition. As such, refusing to accept licenses with problems is a way to address such issues which is likely to be effective when pointing out the problem is ineffective as it was in this case.
Surely I can raise issues without an assumption of bad faith, or even the presumption of incompetence. I am not concerned with the motives behind the decision to include this text, only the results.
There are two possible interpretations of the text: 1) The it has no impact on your obligations under the license. 2) That it imposes restrictions on derivatives where they otherwise wouldn't exist.
(1) doesn't make sense. Why would anyone intentionally add a null-effect term to a license? It only creates the potential for confusion and disappointment.
I can't see how we can possibly say that the freedom to make derivatives the original author might dislike is an *essential* property of free content licenses and yet not encourage free content licenses to explicitly provide this essential right to the greatest extent allowed by law.
That some free content licenses ignore matters outside of copyright is one matter: at least in a dispute I could refer to the language of the licenses the show that the licensor intended to permit derivative to the greatest extent possible. However, any text which actively implies that the right to make and distribute derivatives is dependant on the preference of an upstream author eliminates my ability to argue that the intention of the license was to maximally release me from such restrictions.
Since the behavior of copyright everywhere is that no derivative is permitted without the explicit permission of a license, I do not see how (1) could be considered a reasonable reading of "Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law ... You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" in any case.
The only way I can read that test as not creating a limitation is if I adopt a highly styled usage of English which allows me to assign whatever meaning I wish to whatever word I miss. No US court would endorse such a (ab)use of language.
David Gerard wrote:
On 16/05/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Paragraph 1 of Resolution:Licensing policy is clarified: The
licensing policy does not apply to any inalienable moral rights associated with a work.
Does it apply to moral rights codified in a licence, e.g. some of the CC 3.0 licenses? Are those free-enough or not? There's lots of discussions on Commons talk:Licensing, but surely a Commons talk page shouldn't be setting WMF-wide policy on such a matter.
It seems that introducing "inalienable moral rights" into our rules opens up a really be can of worms. The views on this concept in the English and non-English speaking are heading in opposite directions, and also involve where the different legal systems are heading in opposing directions. Although they tend to be legislated in association with copyrights they are different.
We often speak of having our content be free in the economic sense of copyright, and to have that freedom applicable in as many countries as possible. I think that the freedom to modify is an integral part of that policy. A regime where American users can modify a work, but where Europeans are not even allowed to permit modification of their own work is not free at all. I would prefer that we make it clear that uploading implies licensing the right to modify.
Until there is considerably more clarity about moral rights we would do better not to introduce that term in our policies at all.
Ec
On 17/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Until there is considerably more clarity about moral rights we would do better not to introduce that term in our policies at all.
The question here is whether CC licenses involving moral licenses are free content or not.
I'd also point out to Erik that the CC may have written the licence, but they're not *our* lawyers. Any more than the FSF are.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Until there is considerably more clarity about moral rights we would do better not to introduce that term in our policies at all.
The question here is whether CC licenses involving moral licenses are free content or not.
I'd also point out to Erik that the CC may have written the licence, but they're not *our* lawyers. Any more than the FSF are.
I think we're more or less on the same page on this one, and Jakob is at least right to say that most people are not interested in licence details. They should be, because these subtle details have significant long range effects.
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'm drafting a Board resolution to clarify the existing resolutions "Licensing policy" and "Access to nonpublic data", as follows:
- Paragraph 1 of Resolution:Licensing policy is clarified: The
licensing policy does not apply to any inalienable moral rights associated with a work.
- Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
If you have any other suggestions for clarifications or corrections, please make them ASAP.
Purely practical issue. I'd prefer to do a Resolution:Licensing policy2 and Resolution:Access to nonpublic data2. It makes it easier to immediately see there is a more recent version. Whilst few people can *guess* there is somewhere a resolution updating the policy.
Just pick up the previous resolution, and put an addendum at the bottom.
What do you think ?
Ant
On 5/16/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Purely practical issue. I'd prefer to do a Resolution:Licensing policy2 and Resolution:Access to nonpublic data2. It makes it easier to immediately see there is a more recent version. Whilst few people can *guess* there is somewhere a resolution updating the policy.
Just pick up the previous resolution, and put an addendum at the bottom.
What do you think ?
We can just transclude or link the amendment resolution at the bottom of the original one with a prominent notice that it has been updated.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/16/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Purely practical issue. I'd prefer to do a Resolution:Licensing policy2 and Resolution:Access to nonpublic data2. It makes it easier to immediately see there is a more recent version. Whilst few people can *guess* there is somewhere a resolution updating the policy.
Just pick up the previous resolution, and put an addendum at the bottom.
What do you think ?
We can just transclude or link the amendment resolution at the bottom of the original one with a prominent notice that it has been updated.
I do not think it is practical. Two reasons
Right now, we have a common resolution to fix several unrelated points. I do not think it is such a good idea to do it this way, as some people might agree with one point, disagree with another. Then might vote against even though they might agree with some points. Generally, I think we should always stick to one resolution <-> one topic.
Second reason is that when we want to refer to a resolution, it is much easier to go to the resolution page, and simply copy paste the text. If we copy paste the text, then have to go to one, maybe two, one day three perhaps, updates, and insert the modifications accordingly in relevant paragraph, this is a time loss and a risk for mistakes. I would rather prefer a brand new resolution, refering to an old one, and canceling the old one. On the old one, we can link to the new one and mention the old is no more valid.
Or... another solution (probably better) would be to separate the text of the resolution from the page of the policy itself. The resolution point to a specific version of the policy. The second update resolution simply points to a new version of the policy. In such case, the policy page is always updated and there is no risk of confusion.
Ant
Hello,
I would suggest a single resolution page, updated as appropriate with an "update history" section. I made a mockup of the Licensing policy resolution with the proposed clarification at http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pathoschild/Sandbox&oldid=21187.
On the linked page, note the "Last updated..." line at the top and the "Update history" at the bottom. This method makes organization much easier (making use of the history log), ensures that incoming links always point to the correct page (we can use permalinks to link to a specific revision), and makes it easy to update resolutions whenever necessary.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
I think Pathoschild has a great idea.
Casey Brown Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:09 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Clarification to existing resolutions
Hello,
I would suggest a single resolution page, updated as appropriate with an "update history" section. I made a mockup of the Licensing policy resolution with the proposed clarification at http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pathoschild/Sandbox&o ldid=21187.
On the linked page, note the "Last updated..." line at the top and the "Update history" at the bottom. This method makes organization much easier (making use of the history log), ensures that incoming links always point to the correct page (we can use permalinks to link to a specific revision), and makes it easy to update resolutions whenever necessary.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Florence Devouard wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/16/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Purely practical issue. I'd prefer to do a Resolution:Licensing policy2 and Resolution:Access to nonpublic data2. It makes it easier to immediately see there is a more recent version. Whilst few people can *guess* there is somewhere a resolution updating the policy.
Just pick up the previous resolution, and put an addendum at the bottom.
What do you think ?
We can just transclude or link the amendment resolution at the bottom of the original one with a prominent notice that it has been updated.
I do not think it is practical. Two reasons
Right now, we have a common resolution to fix several unrelated points. I do not think it is such a good idea to do it this way, as some people might agree with one point, disagree with another. Then might vote against even though they might agree with some points. Generally, I think we should always stick to one resolution <-> one topic.
Absolutely, and any Board member should be free to ask that the resolution be divided. This resolution purports to amend two unrelated resolutions to accomplish unrelated aims.
A word about clarifying the language. Use different terms to signify what is being proposed, and what has been adopted. Unfortunately, "resolution" is ambiguous in that it can be used for either; it should not be used for both by the same organisation. "Proposal" and "policy" could avoid that ambiguity.
When proposing something "clarify" is an implicitly POV word. What may clarify things for the proposer, can seem a complete muddle to another person.. Better to say something like, "Paragraph 4 of the policy is amended by adding thereto the following words: ... Such wording may seem dry boring and legalese, but most importantly it is precise.
Second reason is that when we want to refer to a resolution, it is much easier to go to the resolution page, and simply copy paste the text. If we copy paste the text, then have to go to one, maybe two, one day three perhaps, updates, and insert the modifications accordingly in relevant paragraph, this is a time loss and a risk for mistakes. I would rather prefer a brand new resolution, refering to an old one, and canceling the old one. On the old one, we can link to the new one and mention the old is no more valid.
Or... another solution (probably better) would be to separate the text of the resolution from the page of the policy itself. The resolution point to a specific version of the policy. The second update resolution simply points to a new version of the policy. In such case, the policy page is always updated and there is no risk of confusion.
I can't be sure about just what you are trying to say :-( , but it seems to relate to how policy is presented.
The current policy is what has been duly adopted by the Board, and it is what you direct people to when they ask what the policy is. Unless there is an issue about the effective dates of amendments it includes all amendments. You can have historical material about the passage of the original resolution and its amenments, but these are all additional to the policy itself. Sometimes you may want to replace the whole policy, but the problem with that kind of proposal is that it opens up everything to discussion rather than just the specific points that you want changed.
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'm drafting a Board resolution to clarify the existing resolutions "Licensing policy" and "Access to nonpublic data", as follows:
- Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
It seems that the effect of this is to give office staff a blank cheque for writing these policies. Any kind of good governance would require that policies be defined by the Board, and not by office staff.
Ec
On 5/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'm drafting a Board resolution to clarify the existing resolutions "Licensing policy" and "Access to nonpublic data", as follows:
- Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
It seems that the effect of this is to give office staff a blank cheque for writing these policies.
I doubt this. It clearly states "in accordance with the intent of the resolution". If the board feels that the staff-defined policies are not in accordance with the intent of the resolution, it can step in and direct the staff to change the policy.
Michael
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On 5/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'm drafting a Board resolution to clarify the existing resolutions "Licensing policy" and "Access to nonpublic data", as follows:
- Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
It seems that the effect of this is to give office staff a blank cheque for writing these policies.
I doubt this. It clearly states "in accordance with the intent of the resolution". If the board feels that the staff-defined policies are not in accordance with the intent of the resolution, it can step in and direct the staff to change the policy.
Any time one introduces a phrase like "in accordance with the intent" you effectively introduce a weasel phrase. The word, "intent", in particular opens up a wide array of possible meanings, all of which may be in good faith. If the Board has set a clear policy on delicate issues, and a staff member goes outside the permitted bounds the staff member is at fault, and possibly has a greater liability when things go wrong, or he can be justifiably dismissed. On the other hand, if the Board has not given proper direction, it can be the one that will be solely liable when problems occur.
Sure, the Board can step in to direct a change of policy, but by the time it puts its processes together to do so the office atmosphere may already be poisoned. Remember too that the procedures for calling a meeting of an internationally based Board do not always allow for quick meetings.
Also, to the extend that some decision making powers can be delegated to staff, it should be to a designated staff member rather than to the staff at large.
Ec
- Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
It seems that the effect of this is to give office staff a blank cheque for writing these policies. Any kind of good governance would require that policies be defined by the Board, and not by office staff.
I disagree. The board should make general policies, and the staff determine how to apply those policies. If the board isn't happy, they can always hire new staff.
On 5/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
It seems that the effect of this is to give office staff a blank cheque for writing these policies. Any kind of good governance would require that policies be defined by the Board, and not by office staff.
I disagree. The board should make general policies, and the staff determine how to apply those policies. If the board isn't happy, they can always hire new staff.
I agree with this. But "WMF office staff" should be more specific, unless the intention is for each individual staff member to interpret things individually (and therefore inconsistently).
Anthony
I agree with this. But "WMF office staff" should be more specific, unless the intention is for each individual staff member to interpret things individually (and therefore inconsistently).
Once we have an ED, it will be their job to interpret the board's policies and they will tell the rest of the staff what to do - that's what an ED does. Until that point, things are a little vague. That's an unavoidable consequence of not really having anyone in charge, which is why finding an ED should be (and I believe is) a top priority.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I agree with this. But "WMF office staff" should be more specific, unless the intention is for each individual staff member to interpret things individually (and therefore inconsistently).
Once we have an ED, it will be their job to interpret the board's policies and they will tell the rest of the staff what to do - that's what an ED does. Until that point, things are a little vague. That's an unavoidable consequence of not really having anyone in charge, which is why finding an ED should be (and I believe is) a top priority.
I agree that an ED is needed, and that once that person is chosen it would be easier to find common ground between him and the Board about just what the policy means. The also evident fact that things are a little vague for now should not be an excuse for passing policies that are even more vague.
Ec
"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
I think a resolution needs to be as unambiguous as possible so we don't get people in the different communities interpreting them in a way that fits what they think policy should be. For example, what exactly does "reasonably expect" mean?
Also, regarding this:
"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content."
Does each file need to have a fair use rationale on the image page, or does there need to be an applicable rationale that could in theory be used to explain the usage of this image (but doesn't necessarily need to be on the image page)?
"By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted."
Why isn't there a deadline by which the projects need to adopt an EDP? As of right now there's only the March 23, 2008 deadline when all images that aren't free and don't fall under the EDP will be deleted but I think it's reasonable to expect an EDP to be written within, say, 6 months. Also, what sort of help will the foundation offer in the creation of these EDPs?
-Yonatan
On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I agree with this. But "WMF office staff" should be more specific, unless the intention is for each individual staff member to interpret things individually (and therefore inconsistently).
Once we have an ED, it will be their job to interpret the board's policies and they will tell the rest of the staff what to do - that's what an ED does. Until that point, things are a little vague. That's an unavoidable consequence of not really having anyone in charge, which is why finding an ED should be (and I believe is) a top priority.
I agree that an ED is needed, and that once that person is chosen it would be easier to find common ground between him and the Board about just what the policy means. The also evident fact that things are a little vague for now should not be an excuse for passing policies that are even more vague.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yonatan Horan wrote:
"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I agree that an ED is needed, and that once that person is chosen it
would be easier to find common ground between him and the Board about just what the policy means. The also evident fact that things are a little vague for now should not be an excuse for passing policies that are even more vague.
Wow! We really are talking about different things. EDP = Exemption Doctrine Policy. ED = Executive Director. :-)
Ec
I know, this was actually supposed to be a response to the beginning of this thread, I just replied to you since your posting was the latest.
-Yonatan
On 5/21/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yonatan Horan wrote:
"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case
for
almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I agree that an ED is needed, and that once that person is chosen it
would be easier to find common ground between him and the Board about just what the policy means. The also evident fact that things are a little vague for now should not be an excuse for passing policies that are even more vague.
Wow! We really are talking about different things. EDP = Exemption Doctrine Policy. ED = Executive Director. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/5/16, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
I'm drafting a Board resolution to clarify the existing resolutions "Licensing policy" and "Access to nonpublic data", as follows:
- Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the resolution.
Could you (or any other board member) please clarify first what the intent of the resolution is? I currently don't see the intent in the resolution and I assume staff members would have troubles with this as well (and I doubt that this would solve the problem of our otrs volunteers under 18, a new resolution with a more fine tuned approach to age restrictions might be better).
greetings, elian
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org