Hoi,
Out of curiosity, the board insists on an "exemption doctrine policy" for
those Wiki projects that insist to make exemptions and include data that
does not conform to the official policy that has otherwise to be complied
with. As there are legal implications to not conforming to the official
policy, a risc is created that makes the WMF vulnerable to legal
proceedings. As the existence is officially mandated, the WMF seems to take
responsibility for these policies.
How can the WMF take the responsibility for "exemption doctrine policies"
when they are not written down and as a consequence cannot be checked
against pertinent laws in pertinent countries ??
Thanks,
GerardM
On 8/8/07, Kat Walsh <kat(a)mindspillage.org> wrote:
On 8/8/07, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/7/07, cohesion
<cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote:
From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
"...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an
applicable
rationale..."
"...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion
process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be
mistaken,
but I don't see anything there that requires
the rationale be in
writing. My
current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy
adds this requirement
explicitly.
But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity,
just
a nosy list member. ;)
Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and
boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and
applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There
just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for
using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale
exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if
en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to
set policy that way.
(Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who
are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no
reason to think any would disagree.)
-Kat
--
Wikimedia needs you:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on
irc.freenode.net | email for phone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l