On Friday 15 Dec 2006 Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/15/06, luke brandt wrote:
From what I understand (but please someone correct me if I misunderstood the reports) the Wikimedia Board didn't vote last time these matters were raised because it prefers to allow autonomy.
On issues such as whether we should allow NC images I, as member of the current Board, definitely don't think there should be any project level autonomy at all. If we want to keep our content compatible across languages and projects, we need to apply a consistent standard of freedom.
I think this will have to be discussed with the current Board. Unfortunately we're very taken up by fundraising preparations and other critical planning issues at the moment; I do hope to bring it up at the next face-to-face meeting in Janaury.
At this time, I would strongly, strongly ask anyone advocating the use of NC content in a project to reconsider. It would hurt Wikikimedia tremendously.
It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
luke brandt schreef:
On Friday 15 Dec 2006 Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/15/06, luke brandt wrote:
From what I understand (but please someone correct me if I misunderstood the reports) the Wikimedia Board didn't vote last time these matters were raised because it prefers to allow autonomy.
On issues such as whether we should allow NC images I, as member of the current Board, definitely don't think there should be any project level autonomy at all. If we want to keep our content compatible across languages and projects, we need to apply a consistent standard of freedom.
I think this will have to be discussed with the current Board. Unfortunately we're very taken up by fundraising preparations and other critical planning issues at the moment; I do hope to bring it up at the next face-to-face meeting in Janaury.
At this time, I would strongly, strongly ask anyone advocating the use of NC content in a project to reconsider. It would hurt Wikikimedia tremendously.
It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
Hoi, Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I think you are completely wrong in this. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
Hoi, Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I think you are completely wrong in this. Thanks, GerardM
Hi Gerard, I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already read Eric's arguments:
http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
as well as this reply:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
and I'd be interested to know your view.
Thanks luke
luke brandt schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
Hoi, Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I think you are completely wrong in this. Thanks, GerardM
Hi Gerard, I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already read Eric's arguments:
http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
as well as this reply:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
and I'd be interested to know your view.
Thanks luke
Hoi, It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the GFDL. Elementary. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
Hoi, Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I think you are completely wrong in this. Thanks, GerardM
Hi Gerard, I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already read Eric's arguments:
http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
as well as this reply:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
and I'd be interested to know your view.
Thanks luke
Hoi, It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the GFDL. Elementary. Thanks, GerardM
err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
luke brandt schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
Hoi, Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I think you are completely wrong in this. Thanks, GerardM
Hi Gerard, I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already read Eric's arguments:
http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
as well as this reply:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
and I'd be interested to know your view.
Thanks luke
Hoi, It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the GFDL. Elementary. Thanks, GerardM
err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
Hoi, Let us accept that the license of the Wikipedia projects is the GFDL. The GFDL, therefore the FSF has a definition for what is meant by free. You deny the project and the users of its content this freedom by restricting things further than this.
Rejecting commercial exploitation of our content is detrimental to our cause. Our cause is to bring knowledge to the people. If a commercial party makes this happen, they are a boon to our cause. Your point has, in an environment where a license has been chosen to allow for, this no merit. In an other project, you may be absolutely right, however the notion of NC sabotages the intentions of GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa environments (maybe some other environments as well). Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
.. ....... err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
Hoi, Let us accept that the license of the Wikipedia projects is the GFDL. The GFDL, therefore the FSF has a definition for what is meant by free. You deny the project and the users of its content this freedom by restricting things further than this.
Rejecting commercial exploitation of our content is detrimental to our cause. Our cause is to bring knowledge to the people. If a commercial party makes this happen, they are a boon to our cause. Your point has, in an environment where a license has been chosen to allow for, this no merit. In an other project, you may be absolutely right, however the notion of NC sabotages the intentions of GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa environments (maybe some other environments as well). Thanks, GerardM
Hi again,
My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then appeared to be 'no.' I'm not sure if there have been any changes since that time, but your response to my question read as follows:
"The GFDL is the license that was available at the beginning unlike some of what would now be the more obvious. I am sure the GFDL would not be chosen when we were to chose a license for Wikipedia at this moment. The GFDL is imho not really suited for much of the data that we have. It was designed to license manuals to go with software."
So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on what the FSF says, or anyone else. I guess there are many contradictions in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e. those closest to the project concerned. The Foundation should only become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason, certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy. We have a template, that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all, and that is a most empowering ideal. - Thanks, luke
luke brandt schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
.. ....... err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
Hoi, Let us accept that the license of the Wikipedia projects is the GFDL. The GFDL, therefore the FSF has a definition for what is meant by free. You deny the project and the users of its content this freedom by restricting things further than this.
Rejecting commercial exploitation of our content is detrimental to our cause. Our cause is to bring knowledge to the people. If a commercial party makes this happen, they are a boon to our cause. Your point has, in an environment where a license has been chosen to allow for, this no merit. In an other project, you may be absolutely right, however the notion of NC sabotages the intentions of GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa environments (maybe some other environments as well). Thanks, GerardM
Hi again,
My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then appeared to be 'no.' I'm not sure if there have been any changes since that time, but your response to my question read as follows:
"The GFDL is the license that was available at the beginning unlike some of what would now be the more obvious. I am sure the GFDL would not be chosen when we were to chose a license for Wikipedia at this moment. The GFDL is imho not really suited for much of the data that we have. It was designed to license manuals to go with software."
So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on what the FSF says, or anyone else. I guess there are many contradictions in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e. those closest to the project concerned. The Foundation should only become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason, certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy. We have a template, that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all, and that is a most empowering ideal. - Thanks, luke
Hoi, Given the title of this thread I would welcome it when the Wikimedia Foundation board is more expressive about the ND not being permitted. My understanding of there being no explicit preferred license is that as long as the license permits what is essential to being able to take the whole of the project and do things with it is not endangered, any license if fine. A license with NC is therefore not acceptable. Thanks, GerardM
On 1/14/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then appeared to be 'no.'
Not exactly:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on what the FSF says, or anyone else.
I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing with these issues than we do.
I guess there are many contradictions in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e. those closest to the project concerned.
Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive knowlage of international and national copyright law and an understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement.
The Foundation should only become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason, certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy.
The foundation has historicaly rejected this position.
We have a template, that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all, and that is a most empowering ideal.
NC fails in that respect .As does DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright and at least some of CC's sampling licenses.
luke brandt wrote:
err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license for a wiki either.
It is quite embarrassing to think that you would be uneducated about these definitions and the history of Wikipedia. Surely this is covered in the FAQs.
You can wish for any license you want, and then all you need is to invent a time machine to go back to 2001 and implement your ideas.
If you are talking about a completely new project, not Wikipedia, then you can pick any license you want.
Here is one rationale for the stand on "non-commercial" licenses. I suppose you know the saying "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime". Free software projects such as Linux and free contents projects such as Wikipedia are recipies for making your own fishing rod, aiming to give the fish-catcher the most freedom. What if you use it to catch some fish? Are you allowed to sell that? Or does your fishing rod come with a limiting clause that says you can only use this tool for Non-Commercial (NC) purposes? Which kind of license gives you the most freedom?
Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise (such as it is) pro bono publico?
If I give my time to improve this free recipy for making fishing rods, why should I want to impose an NC license on it? Who is harmed by "exploitation", except for the fish?
geni wrote:
On 1/14/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then appeared to be 'no.'
Not exactly:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was posted 18 months previously. It is still true that the answer to my question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose from, or we could formulate a custom one. Now the current meeting could maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted.....
On Jimmy Wales's general position regarding the GFDL, see this discussion thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_living_people#Exceptio...
So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on what the FSF says, or anyone else.
I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing with these issues than we do.
I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's right to do. We are in a unique situation.
I guess there are many contradictions in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e. those closest to the project concerned.
Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive knowlage of international and national copyright law and an understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement.
Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking particularly about China and how things are developing there.
The Foundation should only become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason, certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy.
The foundation has historicaly rejected this position.
Be more specific, please. China I suppose comes to mind as an example where judicious involvement may help carry the project forward.
We have a template, that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all, and that is a most empowering ideal.
NC fails in that respect .As does DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright and at least some of CC's sampling licenses.
Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an objective..this link may be of use:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
Thanks, luke
luke brandt schreef:
geni wrote:
On 1/14/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then appeared to be 'no.'
Not exactly:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was posted 18 months previously. It is still true that the answer to my question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose from, or we could formulate a custom one. Now the current meeting could maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted.....
On Jimmy Wales's general position regarding the GFDL, see this discussion thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_living_people#Exceptio...
So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on what the FSF says, or anyone else.
I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing with these issues than we do.
I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's right to do. We are in a unique situation.
I guess there are many contradictions in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e. those closest to the project concerned.
Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive knowlage of international and national copyright law and an understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement.
Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking particularly about China and how things are developing there.
The Foundation should only become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason, certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy.
The foundation has historicaly rejected this position.
Be more specific, please. China I suppose comes to mind as an example where judicious involvement may help carry the project forward.
We have a template, that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all, and that is a most empowering ideal.
NC fails in that respect .As does DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright and at least some of CC's sampling licenses.
Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an objective..this link may be of use:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
Thanks, luke
Hoi, If you want the board to pronounce its opinion, I would be utterly and utterly surprised when the official position is anything but a resounding NO to non commercial stuff. In diplomacy they say that you should not ask a question if you cannot life with the answer. I can, but can you ? Thanks, Gerard
--- luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
Free means free to do just about anything you want with the material so long as proper credit is given and those modifications are given the same freedoms. Even though images can be considered separate works on the web, having non-free/NC ones in an article would prevent that article's use in a commercial product.
And the freedom granted in the GFDL *specifically* mentions the freedom to use GFDLd material commercially. So the use of NC images goes against the spirit if not the letter of the FDL. Also, there is also at least some doubt as to whether images can, in a legal sense (again, IANAL), in fact be considered separate works in all circumstances from text.
So even though our non-profit status may allow us to use NC image, others who use our content for commercial purposes would need to constantly remove non-free images. And *that* makes it needlessly difficult for others to use and enjoy our work.
That is why the foundation has a strict policy against using any image or other media that has non-free aspects.
I'm sorry, but this policy is set in stone and will not change; there is a constant open season on NC and other non-free images. No one wiki community can decide otherwise and any wheel war that results will invariably favor the admins who are following this policy and sanction those that are actively using their admin powers to fight against it.
-- mav
____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Lars Aronsson wrote:
luke brandt wrote:
err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license for a wiki either.
It is quite embarrassing to think that you would be uneducated about these definitions and the history of Wikipedia. Surely this is covered in the FAQs.
You can wish for any license you want, and then all you need is to invent a time machine to go back to 2001 and implement your ideas.
If you are talking about a completely new project, not Wikipedia, then you can pick any license you want.
Hi Lars, In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose. Assume a contributor were to take legal action against us....presumably they would have been harmed in some way...how exactly? It reminds me of the case of a gentleman who was 'hurt' when the 'cut' of his suit was criticised :)
But you didn't address the issue of freedom in the abstract case yet.
Here is one rationale for the stand on "non-commercial" licenses. I suppose you know the saying "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime". Free software projects such as Linux and free contents projects such as Wikipedia are recipies for making your own fishing rod, aiming to give the fish-catcher the most freedom. What if you use it to catch some fish? Are you allowed to sell that? Or does your fishing rod come with a limiting clause that says you can only use this tool for Non-Commercial (NC) purposes? Which kind of license gives you the most freedom?
I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke
luke brandt schreef:
I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke
Hoi, When I am hungry and someone offers me a fish, and insists on telling me a long winded story with what I can and cannot do with the fish, I will wait and salivate from hunger. I will say thank you .. and think: "what an arrogant prick".. he knows I am hungry .. I want to grill, cook it with herbs and butter.. I am HUNGRY why does he not allow me to go home and cook !! Thanks, GerardM
On 14/01/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose. Assume a contributor were to take legal action against us....presumably they would have been harmed in some way...how exactly?
Remember the "contributor" here doesn't just have some intangible vague sense of "participation"; they have a concrete interest in that they own a slice of the intellectual property of the work. We would have taken their property without their consent and offered it to the world, for the taking, on conditions that are clearly not the same as those they had originally given.
If that isn't illegal, it damn well ought to be.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, If you want the board to pronounce its opinion, I would be utterly and utterly surprised when the official position is anything but a resounding NO to non commercial stuff. In diplomacy they say that you should not ask a question if you cannot life with the answer. I can, but can you ? Thanks, Gerard
Hi Gerard,
You'll know that Eric intended to raise the question of NC at the current meeting, and yes I'm well aware of the implications of a decision on the matter. Of course I am. Maybe the Board will see sense, maybe it won't :) - Best wishes, luke
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 14/01/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose. Assume a contributor were to take legal action against us....presumably they would have been harmed in some way...how exactly?
Remember the "contributor" here doesn't just have some intangible vague sense of "participation"; they have a concrete interest in that they own a slice of the intellectual property of the work. We would have taken their property without their consent and offered it to the world, for the taking, on conditions that are clearly not the same as those they had originally given.
If that isn't illegal, it damn well ought to be.
I'm darned sure some activist judges will agree with you :) You'll make a fine advocate
Best luke
On 14/01/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's clear the answer to your question is "No. Just no."
- d.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke
Hoi, When I am hungry and someone offers me a fish, and insists on telling me a long winded story with what I can and cannot do with the fish, I will wait and salivate from hunger. I will say thank you .. and think: "what an arrogant prick".. he knows I am hungry .. I want to grill, cook it with herbs and butter.. I am HUNGRY why does he not allow me to go home and cook !! Thanks, GerardM
You made me hungry :)
You would curse your benefactor even though you are penniless, because he delays while he tries to suss whether you are a suitable person for his munificence...tut-tut, such gratitude :) Wait, eat and be satisfied.
*hugs* from luke
luke brandt wrote:
In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose.'
Lest you actually try this, it remains a pointless theory. You could just as well say "what would happen if pigs could fly". So to get from theory to reality, I suggest you make a try. Take a copy of Wikipedia's contents and release it on your own website under another license that you think is appropriate. Go ahead.
On 1/14/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/14/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then appeared to be 'no.'
Not exactly:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was posted 18 months previously.
Which was when for the most part the issue was settled.
It is still true that the answer to my question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose from, or we could formulate a custom one.
Wikinews suggested that one. I think the response was please no. At least partly because of the shear number of existing free lisences.
Now the current meeting could maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted.....
That would be politicaly unwise since we would either upset the FSF or CC. The case of lisences we can use is already defined.
I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's right to do. We are in a unique situation.
Not really. Lots of people have delt with free lisence issues and we can't afford many lawyers
Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking particularly about China and how things are developing there.
I think we largely ignore china.
Be more specific, please.
The actions rather than the theory of WP:OFFICE. Certian actions by people acting for the foundation. I'm not going to dig up the details of my past clashes with the foundation.
Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an objective.
Companies have quite a good record of spreading knowlage when they can make money off it. The record of doing so when they cannot is rather less good.
.this link may be of use:
Red hat makes a fair amount of money. Acording to that article that is imposible. With errors of that scale I don't think further examination is likely to reveal useful results.
The reply suggests that advertising on a website disqualifies it from being non-commercial use. One affect of that policy is that only people who can afford to completely fund their site without advertising support may reuse the content.
The argument that employing a share-alike license destroys commercial viability is also dubious.
Hi Gerard, I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already read Eric's arguments:
http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
as well as this reply:
http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
and I'd be interested to know your view.
Thanks luke
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, If you want the board to pronounce its opinion, I would be utterly and utterly surprised when the official position is anything but a resounding NO to non commercial stuff. In diplomacy they say that you should not ask a question if you cannot life with the answer. I can, but can you ?
I apologize for agreeing with you again. :-)
It frequently happens that someone asks for a Board ruling on some debateable issue. They tend to be confident that they are right and that the Board will agree with them. They are sometimes disappointed. Every such official proclamation has implications that may not be obvious to the person making the request. The Board should not be making editorial policies unless it has no other choice. Saying that we must all follow NPOV is one thing, but trying to provide a lot of detailed rules to define what it means may be contrary to NPOV.
Ec
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
luke brandt schreef:
I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke
Hoi, When I am hungry and someone offers me a fish, and insists on telling me a long winded story with what I can and cannot do with the fish, I will wait and salivate from hunger. I will say thank you .. and think: "what an arrogant prick".. he knows I am hungry .. I want to grill, cook it with herbs and butter.. I am HUNGRY why does he not allow me to go home and cook !!
There's a difference when you want to sell it instead of eat it. If you live in a landlocked country where fish is not normally eaten you may even think that it stinks and you cannot possibly hold it down in your stomach. You may know someone else who is willing to take your fish intrade for "real food". Where does that put you if this is not allowed by the donor?
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org