I'm starting to think you just don't like changes... every change that is done will result in a email from you....

On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever.

On 19 February 2011 11:58, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's understanding of them.

On 19 February 2011 12:56, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: And yet you claimed legal problems. Noine of which is anything whatsoever to do with CC by-sa, which you claimed originally to be talking about. Unless you can distinguish the concepts you are talking about quite a bit more clearly, you will not convince anyone there is a problem in the world, as opposed to a problem in your understanding.

On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo &lt;teofilowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: No, I think you're dead wrong there. Gratuitous licence proliferation is bad because it reduces interoperability and hence reusability. This has been observed repeatedly in the world of open source software; for you to claim that a proliferation of incompatible licences is a good thing in the world of free content, you would need to supply more than the mere assertions you provide here. Anything more than a continuum of PD <-> CC-by (equiv) <-> CC-by-sa needs *very good* justification. Steering people to one of those three by preferences is absolutely the right thing to do as it maximises reusability.

On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo &lt;teofilowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

I think you could be the only person on the face of the planet to try to argue that CC by-sa isn't a free content licence.

On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo &lt;teofilowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: No, I think you're dead wrong there. Gratuitous licence proliferation is bad because it reduces interoperability and hence reusability. This has been observed repeatedly in the world of open source software; for you to claim that a proliferation of incompatible licences is a good thing in the world of free content, you would need to supply more than the mere assertions you provide here. Anything more than a continuum of PD <-> CC-by (equiv) <-> CC-by-sa needs *very good* justification. Steering people to one of those three by preferences is absolutely the right thing to do as it maximises reusability.

I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds.

A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an "unported" license. This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a disappointing regression from the better 2.0 version. In contrast, the CC 2.0 licenses have country (and/or language) based versions such as : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.fr http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/au/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode and so on.

2011/2/19 David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: 3.0 is not as thoroughly internationalized as 2.0. Click on the following links so that you can see by yourself that they are empty : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ca/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/fr/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ja/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/in/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ru/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think the upload wizard should - allow non-CC licenses such as License art libre, or GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, Open Source Music License, etc... - when CC licenses are chosen, allow to pick up licenses from any version (2.0 or 2.5 or 3.0) and any country as freely as with http://creativecommons.org/choose/ , eliminating the "NC" and "ND" versions which don't fit Commons' licensing policy.

I think the upload wizard should - allow non-CC licenses such as License art libre, or GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, Open Source Music License, etc... - when CC licenses are chosen, allow to pick up licenses from any version (2.0 or 2.5 or 3.0) and any country as freely as with http://creativecommons.org/choose/ , eliminating the "NC" and "ND" versions which don't fit Commons' licensing policy.

On 20 February 2011 15:52, Teofilo &lt;teofilowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: All 3.0 versions of a given CC licence are explicitly compatible with each other. Your objections are literally not making sense in the domain of what you are talking about.

On 20 February 2011 16:18, Teofilo &lt;teofilowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You also presume that CC by-sa is a non-free licence. Further, you still haven't explained your notion that licence proliferation is good for free content despite having already been bad for free software. I'm sure you'll actually answer eventually.

But on Wikimedia Commons we are not dealing with a specific sector. We are receiving a variety of contents from different creative worlds. By the same token that you do not use the same legal code for a wedding contract and for a car purchase,

I am not sure if the same contract can be used for a bronze statue and a for a song. I don't think you may address the mold issue for the statue exactly the same way as the musical score issue for the song.

I think it would be a mistake to narrow on a single license, while there is still no good license for videos. No license at present ensures that the distributors will provide a download link together with the video, whenever they distribute it.

For the time being, the less bad licenses for videos are the "Licence art libre" with "specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent)" (1) (but it is not clear if the word "recipient" applies only to distribution recipients or also means performance viewers and audiences) and the GFDL, from where it is possible to argue that an embedded player without a download link might not be "transparent enough", and that public performance without distribution is anyway not allowed by the GFDL, but that is far from being an explicit way to have reusers understand what thay may or may not do with the video.

On the internet, it is easy to copy the text in small fonts or in a collapsible drop-down menu, or if you are lazy, provide a hyperlink to 0http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html .

What is more complicated is what happens in a movie theatre. In my opinion, the theatre owner should tell the viewers where the movie is available for download on the internet.

Creative Commons licenses also don't address the forgetfulness of a slideshow presenter who forgets to upload his slideshow on the internet so that everybody can access the digital file and modify it for his own use.

Creative Commons allows to merely perform the work without actually share it.

2011/2/21 geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: (...) The yet to be written Free Video License might say that this requirement applies only in the case when the original creator first released the first version on the internet.

Alternative ways of providing the original version might be allowed with a wording similar to that of GFDL for transparent copies : offer to send them by traditional mail, at a reasonable cost.

I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation.

2011/2/21 geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: (...) People who work with actual physical slides are unlikely to incorporate contents from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is online. If they bother to create a physical slide out of content from Wikipedia, they must have a computer with an internet connection, so it is not difficult for them to upload the equivalent of the slide they created at Wikimedia Commons, or on imageshack if it is not an educational content. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest of this thread. However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal. Copyright is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal work-a-day copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make sense if they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright world people pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid having to face how ugly it is under the microscope. Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people with narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that translate poorly into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not internationally speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums. Birgitte SB ----- Original Message ---- with numerous eternity will fact also people other, want some so. No cut Teofilo personal bother https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi, If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular license, it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for instance print or do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot claim the same right on the same object in a higher resolution. A license is given for what is provided in the way it is provided. What you can or cannot do with is depends on the license. Thanks, GerardM On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: one truly and the of sense world having translate Teofilo whole dance and with https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From: Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List &lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 7:10:44 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications If that is the case (As I understood this has never yet been tested in court, but I would appreciate any links to any jurisprudence, although we probably should start a new thread) then the point I tried to make still stands: a license should work in every medium. Whether the uploader makes restrictions to the applicability of the license does not matter, we should just avoid that merely because of the license the work cannot be used in a certain medium. I hoped to direct the discussion a bit into a helpful direction, but I guess my email is only leading to different side tracks. Best regards, Lodewijk 2011/2/23 Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; > Hoi, > If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular license, > it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for instance print or > do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot claim the same right on > the same object in a higher resolution. > > A license is given for what is provided in the way it is provided. What you > can or cannot do with is depends on the license. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: > > > Just to make a clarification: > > > > If you have copyright on a "thing" (with the lack of a better word) in > one > > medium, you also have it in another. If a text or image is copyrighted in > > print, it is copyrighted online. That is what I meant with universal in > > this > > context, sorry if I was confusing. > > > > Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content > truly > > re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to "publish" > > it > > - print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an

> > and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply. > > > > Of course I am aware of all kinds of problems in copyright legislation > and > > how it sucks, I know that countries have different laws, one worse than > the > > other. But solving that would probably be slightly over > > stretching ourselves. > > > > Best, > > > > Lodewijk > > > > 2011/2/23 Birgitte SB &lt;birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com&gt; > > > > > I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest > of > > > this > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal. > > > Copyright > > > is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal > > work-a-day > > > copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make > sense > > > if > > > they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright > world > > > people > > > pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid > having > > to > > > face > > > how ugly it is under the microscope. > > > > > > > > > Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people > > with > > > narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that > translate > > > poorly > > > into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not > > internationally > > > speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums. > > > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > > From: Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; > > > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List < > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > > Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:02:05 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big > > disagreement > > > with > > > >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications > > > > > > > > I don't get it. > > > > > > > > Copyright is universal, so should copyright licenses be. There are > > > numerous > > > > exceptions to come up with, and we can discuss on this list into > > > eternity > > > > about those where Geni can come up with wonderful examples and > Teofilo > > > will > > > > come up with reasons why they fall outside his scope. Doesnt the > whole > > > fact > > > > that we have this discussion proof the point already and remove the > > > > necessity of such? > > > > > > > > The point is that GFDL has impracticalities to some people. Whether > > you > > > also > > > > have these impracticalities does not really matter, as long as some > > > people > > > > experience them as such, because it limits re-use. > > > > > > > > The question is, should Wikimedia Commons favor one license over the > > > other, > > > > or even discourage the use of some subset of free licenses? > > > > > > > > I think that offering a default license is great - it is a major > > > > simplification of the upload process and increases the odds that > > someone > > > > will make an upload. Because be honest: most authors don't care,

> > > want > > > > their content uploaded to Wikipedia. If that requires them to release > > > some > > > > rights they won't commercialize anyway, they are likely willing to do > > > so. No > > > > matter the conditions. If they would be required to make a silly > dance > > > > through walkthrough license schemes, they will just get frustrated > and > > > cut > > > > off the process. > > > > > > > > Of course we can have an advanced upload scheme where people like > > > Teofilo > > > > can pick all complicated licenses they like or even type their own > > > personal > > > > release which then can be judged by the community - but please

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content truly re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to "publish" it - print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an airplane and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply.

For the time being, the less bad licenses for videos are the "Licence art libre" with "specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent)" (1) (but it is not clear if the word "recipient" applies only to distribution recipients or also means performance viewers and audiences) and the GFDL, from where it is possible to argue that an embedded player without a download link might not be "transparent enough", and that public performance without distribution is anyway not allowed by the GFDL, but that is far from being an explicit way to have reusers understand what thay may or may not do with the video.

Can't images are again CC-BY-SA and not compatible

On 21 February 2011 19:45, Teofilo &lt;teofilowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Why on earth should they do that? CC has actual lawyers and people who think about copyright rather a lot. They also have no reason to switch from a generalist license (which is what CC-BY-SA is) to a specialist license (which is what your video license would be).