On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler <zhaladshar(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres currently is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious multilingual project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since 2004 (when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki: Lugusto, User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April 2006. This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try to search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a text and get a page on italian... Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a external link. This isn't userfriendly. (FYI I'm going to propose to the small community from Portuguese Wikisource to ignore the non-aceptance of a short term from the USA copyright laws on adding texts, but listing the incompatible ones; if in a near future this generates some king of problem, all affected works can be easily moved/deleted to some place and no one may try to boot a admin from Wikisource if he gets prohibited to upload a work that are in public domain in their country [and possibly worldwide, except on the USA])

On 30/04/07, Luiz Augusto <lugusto(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map Put a sensible request in there and a meta admin will probably approve it. Then you just need to wait until the interwiki script is run again. - d.

On 5/1/07, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote: I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional wiki for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;) Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to me and I've made a request for addition.

Related to this, there is a discussion on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_… Maybe somebody from the Foundation is willing to comment there? Bryan On 5/6/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Bryan Tong Minh wrote: Another thing that one might consider in this is the ruling at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Itar-Tass_Russian_News_Agency_v._Russian_Kuri… This did rule that ownership of a copyright was ruled by the law of the country of origin. Ownership of a copyright also has duration of copyright as one of its elements. Thus it can be argued that the other country's duration should apply. It is not the Berne Convention the is affecting the duration of copyright, since that would generate a life + 50 years situation rather than the longer period that exists in many other countries. Another interesting argument that can be made for restored works is that they would be granted the protection available to US works on the basis of the law at the time they were published. A US work published in 1924 had to have its copyright renewed in 1952. The same should apply to restored foreign works. Ec

Only three board members have given their opinion for now. 1 is in favor of 3, and two in favor of 1. This said, I prefer having a legal advice on this. So, I consider the topic is currently pending. Hopefully, with an answer soon. Meanwhile, please be careful in tagging such images. Ant Yoni Weiden wrote:

I just put an email to the board to follow up on the wikicommons discussion. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Opinion_section Ant Yoni Weiden wrote:

On 5/8/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: That isn't really possible possible (laws mutually contradict) and I can't see us following Mexican law for most stuff. -- geni

Ah, and... You know what.... Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-) Well guys... looks like our position sort of reflects the uncertainties of commons vote. So, as I told the board a few days ago, my position is to "wait and see till a US lawyer has given his analysis on this". I'll stick to it. And meanwhile, I invite the 4 board members who made comments, to engage in discussion on this list :-) Anthere Florence Devouard wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote: I didn't read it as expressing the view of the Board. It merely noted that opinion was divided, and that no decision had been made. Ec

Thomas Dalton wrote: Plus my opinion, makes 4. That makes a quorum. I will mention that I did not consult ONLY 3 people, I never do that. I ask all of them. They can answer or not answer. And yes, that outlines that there should be a deadline to answer a question/gives an opinion. I increasingly have a problem of incompatibility of * on one hand, the desire of the community, of the staff, of potential partners, of journalists, etc... to always have an answer as soon as possible, preferably yesterday * on the other hand, an increasing requirement for procedures, with written statements (resolutions - which needs to be written by someone), delay requirements for calling a meeting (10 days minimum), quorum (which implies board members should be very frequently available to assist most meetings) The internet flexibility does not fit well with bureaucratic requirements. A recent example for me was the DVD key issue. I got several emails of people requesting a Foundation feedback during the night. When I got online, more requests on irc and by skype. Request was made to immediately provide the position of the Foundation on the DVD matter. Right. So, first collect the information (what is that key story anyway ?). Then find a lawyer. Ask for an opinion. Wait for the feedback. Write to board members and ask their opinion. Wait for the answers. Read further emails received from english admin asking Foundation position ASAP. Wait for USA to wake up. Then collect 2 comments. Wonder if two comments are sufficient to represent Foundation opinion. Wait more ? 1 hour ? 4 hours ? Consider feedback sufficient in spite of no quorum ? Write down a resolution and call for a meeting in 10 days ? Hope 4 people will be there to vote ? I am partly joking. But only partly. Some people will complain I did not give enough time to give a feedback. Others that the Foundation is becoming a heavy machine unable to make decisions. Both will be correct probably. Another solution to speed up process would be to make decisions alone and speak in the name of the board (which is probably legal), which would be said to be power abuse. Nothing's ever perfect :-) ant

Erik Moeller wrote: Sorry, but I really do not agree on this specific point. I consider issues around copyright and licenses to be amongst those "major rules", which should not be changed just because 15 people vote for a change. The rule planned to be changed is at the core of the wikimedia commons project. See here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_… I tend to believe that whilst the day to day editorial policies are totally in the hands of the community, changing the core rules of a project is different. At a minimum, it deserves our attention.

Erik Moeller wrote: It's a tough situation because I can see where there are people who would drive the Board in two opposing directions. Some people cannot function without rules, while others have the maturity to apply common sense to the situation at hand. Being able to depend on the security of a rule relieves the burden of having to make hard decisions. Of course, those who most want the rules also want them to reflect their own preconceptions. The crew of the Enterprise needs to remain fully conscious of the Prime Directive. The communities MUST be free to solve their own problems, and make their own mistakes; without that they are not learning communities. The Foundation should avoid deciding for and interfering with the communities in other than the most strictly defined circumstances. Even when legalities are involved the communities need to find their own levels of comfort in the extent to which they will accept legal risks. With the DVD key issue the Foundation should resist the temptation to step in and say, " _this_ will be the rule." It absolutely needs to respond to proper legal demands; it must not let itself become the flotsom of legal speculation. I wouldn't6 want to be tied down to the "voting is evil" mantra. Nevertheless, voting can have the effect of polarizing a discussion, and excluding the middle. Decisions by attritionare no better because they shut out the more contemplative approach to a problem. Much of decision-making tends to be dominated by people who can't live without rules; that's just another variation on the same theme played by those who insistt on the board making these decisions. Putting the final decision in the hands of a self-selected group of elders comes with it's own problems. It requires a very high degree of trust, and, as Danny's request for adminship showed, we do not lack in people who are willing to put their own petty vindictiveness ahead of the common good. As a society we have learned not to trust. We have learned this through implicit and not explicit lessons. When the most visible public models are indecisive, incompetent, self-serving or corrupt we learn mistrust, and anticipate similar behaviours in everyone. We cease to assume good faith, and build structures that are primarily designed to deal with the undesireable. Exuberant youthful impatience only compounds the problem. If we could solve the problems of the decision making process, it could be an even greater accomplishment than our encyclopedia. This requires accepting change as a constant. It also requires accepting that the voice of newbies is just as important to yesterday's decisions as it is to tomorrow's Give the community time to solve it. Don't expect an immediate solution. As long as there is no immediate and credible legal threat it might take a few weeks to fix the problem, but that's all right. All the panic, alarms and doomsday scenarios that come out of such issues are just that. OK, not only helping it to govern itself, but letting it govern itself. Ec

On 5/7/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: If you don't have nothing to help on this issue, please stop on acting like a troll. So sorry for assuming bad faith.

Florence Devouard wrote: Why should you need a deadline? Is it your demand or someone else's? Yep! We need to find new ways of doing things. Tell them that you will answer in a week or two ...... maybe. Your reaction is very maternal. It is a mother's instinct to want all her children to be safe, but when those children number in the thousands you are soon confronted with your limitations. SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. Don't become captive to the panic of others. I don't even expect that of you. ;-) Ec

Florence Devouard wrote: I sometimes feel that your "job" must be very frustrating. :'( I don't think that the quorum quibble which Thomas raised was very helpful, nor is anyone's anxiety to view everything you say as the pope's official word. Sometimes when you ask questions, it's because you are looking for answers. The internal procedures that the Board follows in arriving at decisions belong exclusively to the Board. One hopes they will be fair, and in the end, as the Carver model shows, the Board speaks with one voice. The Board may choose to be open in its deliberations, but those who observe those deliberations must fully understand the difference between a proposal and a decision. Even a proposal that has the unanimous support of the Board's members is not yet a decision. BTW when I attended a conference I had a chat with a person who trains non-profit boards in Carver governance. I still can't say that I fully understand some of the ideas. :-( It often depends on the question, its importance and its urgency. One would think it would be easy to get responses when only six responsible people need to answer. :-) The big danger still with those questions which others expect you to answer on behalf of the Board when the Board has never considered the matter. Sometimes they need to be told exactly that. The questioners need to be reminded that they need to find their own solutions. Perhaps this needs to be supported by a Board policy about when it will or won't interfere with the activities of a project. Personally, I think that such intervention should be kept to an absolute minimum. I am in Richmond, a suburb of Vancouver. Ec

In this case, I think it would be best to cancel all PD-country templates, as only the PD-US counts. Whether or not a picture is PD in a country outside the US is irrelevent - as the servers are located in the US. Regarding Luiz's suggestion - I support it. If this is possible technically, I am willing to suggest that Wikimedia Israel set up a Wikimedia server dedicated to contain Israeli PD pictures that are not PD in other countries. Before suggesting such a move, I would suggest that a specialized law firm will confirm this PD problem between Israel and the US. Yoni 2007/4/27, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>om>: