I do not think it is necessary to comment on whether the editor had a good idea or not to make the wikijunior on big cats available for print. It seems pretty natural to think he made it in good faith. I did not have the opportunity to see the version, since it was removed from Lulu site. Also, unless I am wrong in what defines an "author", I see not why the Foundation would be listed as a co-author of the books, or of any wikibooks in the future.
There is an issue on which I'd like to react though.
Anthony wrote "Distributing content (including in print form) *is* the purpose of Wikimedia."
Well.... not exactly.
The bylaws do mention a distribution free of charge, but it makes no reference on whether it should be online, on paper, on dvd etc...
The bylaws do not mention a distribution non-free of charge.
The main page mentions "encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content". Note the "encouraging". It means "support", "help", "initiate"... but not necessarily "do".
It is still unclear to me (and probably to most) whether *online*, we are hosting or publishing. I think jurisdiction is messy anyway, so we should probably claim "hosting" but legally plan to be qualified "publishing".
However, as soon as we make a DVD or a paper version, we'll definitly be "publisher". So, with no doubt enter a certain category, with a certain amount of legal risks. And a certain amount of benefits. Which might make the risk worth.
Among benefits, a financial one. It is unclear as of today whether we are looking for *this* specific benefit though. *I* am not looking for that benefit for the Foundation. I do not know if other board members would.
Another benefit would be to help distribution, for example in providing all pressed dvd to ship in certain countries. We could press the DVD and get as an income exactly what the DVD costs us. This is a different benefit. And one which might possibly induce lesser costs in case of a problem.
There is also a certain benefit in terms of image.
*If* we become publishers, we should know why we are becoming publishers. To make cash ? To improve image ? To satisfy a sponsor ? To provide kids in schools ?
But in any cases, it is not among goals of the Foundation to become publishers to make *profit*. Distributing content in print form *is* not the purpose of Wikimedia. We may do it. It is not our declared goal.
Anthere
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Also, unless I am wrong in what defines an "author", I see not why the Foundation would be listed as a co-author of the books, or of any wikibooks in the future.
In part I am responsible for this chain of events as far as claiming the WMF as an "author". I'm still not convinced that the Foundation isn't an author or at least a copyright claimant, but I was trying to make a politically neutral sentiment when I created the copyright notice that the Wikijunior books have which simply stated the following:
"© Copyright 2004–2006, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and contributing authors, all rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Document License, version 1.2."
I have tried to solicit comments about this wording, and the page it is on (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Solar_System/Copyright_Notice) dates back to over a year ago when I first put it up. I'm sorry that it has created this kind of problem. All this user did was use the WMF name as one of the "authors", just as the copyright notice claimed.
I know this was a small detail at the time, but it is the kind of minor detail that can create huge problems if not done correctly. If there are any reasonable suggestions on how to change the wording of this copyright slug and what should be listed here instead, it would be appreciated. This is a Wiki page and thus is editable by ordinary Wikimedia users as well
Dont we have a lawyer for these kind of things? =D
On 7/4/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Also, unless I am wrong in what defines an "author", I see not why the Foundation would be listed as a co-author of the books, or of any wikibooks in the future.
In part I am responsible for this chain of events as far as claiming the WMF as an "author". I'm still not convinced that the Foundation isn't an author or at least a copyright claimant, but I was trying to make a politically neutral sentiment when I created the copyright notice that the Wikijunior books have which simply stated the following:
"(c) Copyright 2004–2006, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and contributing authors, all rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Document License, version 1.2."
I have tried to solicit comments about this wording, and the page it is on (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Solar_System/Copyright_Notice) dates back to over a year ago when I first put it up. I'm sorry that it has created this kind of problem. All this user did was use the WMF name as one of the "authors", just as the copyright notice claimed.
I know this was a small detail at the time, but it is the kind of minor detail that can create huge problems if not done correctly. If there are any reasonable suggestions on how to change the wording of this copyright slug and what should be listed here instead, it would be appreciated. This is a Wiki page and thus is editable by ordinary Wikimedia users as well
-- Robert Scott Horning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The lawyer is very much aware of this problem now and will be working on it. In particular I am fascinated that two of our stellar 'IANAL' folks are the persons who wrote [[Wikibooks:Copyright]].
On 7/4/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Dont we have a lawyer for these kind of things? =D
On 7/4/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Also, unless I am wrong in what defines an "author", I see not why the Foundation would be listed as a co-author of the books, or of any wikibooks in the future.
In part I am responsible for this chain of events as far as claiming the WMF as an "author". I'm still not convinced that the Foundation isn't an author or at least a copyright claimant, but I was trying to make a politically neutral sentiment when I created the copyright notice that the Wikijunior books have which simply stated the following:
"(c) Copyright 2004–2006, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and contributing authors, all rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Document License, version 1.2."
I have tried to solicit comments about this wording, and the page it is on (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Solar_System/Copyright_Notice) dates back to over a year ago when I first put it up. I'm sorry that it has created this kind of problem. All this user did was use the WMF name as one of the "authors", just as the copyright notice claimed.
I know this was a small detail at the time, but it is the kind of minor detail that can create huge problems if not done correctly. If there are any reasonable suggestions on how to change the wording of this copyright slug and what should be listed here instead, it would be appreciated. This is a Wiki page and thus is editable by ordinary Wikimedia users as well
-- Robert Scott Horning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brad Patrick wrote:
The lawyer is very much aware of this problem now and will be working on it. In particular I am fascinated that two of our stellar 'IANAL' folks are the persons who wrote [[Wikibooks:Copyright]].
I hope you are not refering to myself here. All I've done on that page is some minor tweaks partucularly to inform project admins that there might be a copyright violation (making it easier to delete violating material) and adding a disclaimer that you should seek local legal counsel if you are not in the USA but are republishing content that is fair-use. I hope you don't consider that to be bad advise.
As far as Mav is concerned, he was simply trying to get something of a disclaimer, hoping that at some time in the future we as a group would eventually get somebody interested and give it the hard legal review it deserves. The Wikipedia copyright page really isn't that much better for that matter, and if I'm not mistaken the Wikibooks copyright page was a fork of the Wikipedia copyright page back when Wikibooks was first started, and certainly the Wikipedia copyright page was worked on by the same individuals.
For myself, why I may not be a lawyer, I have done an extensive study of copyright law including case histories in the USA, and try very hard to keep up on changes in copyright law as well. I do this mainly out of professional interest because so much of what I do every day is tied to copyright law in some way or another, and there are a number of legal landmines you can land on if you are not careful. Quite litterally, my livelyhood and ability to provide for my family depends on knowing copyright law. That I don't do more is because I would rather create the content than spend time learning how to stop idiots from stealing it.
On 7/4/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
There is an issue on which I'd like to react though.
Anthony wrote "Distributing content (including in print form) *is* the purpose of Wikimedia."
Well.... not exactly.
The bylaws do mention a distribution free of charge, but it makes no reference on whether it should be online, on paper, on dvd etc...
It's important to realize the context of my statement, which was regarding Unrelated Business Taxable Income on revenues generated by distributing print versions of content currently distributed online.
The amended articles of incorporation give the "specific purpose" of the foundation as "to create and freely distribute freely licensed encyclopedias, textbooks, reference works, and other literary, scientific, and educational information in all languages of the world." Print is not explicitly mentioned. This purpose is certainly much different from that of a museum.
Among benefits, a financial one. It is unclear as of today whether we are looking for *this* specific benefit though. *I* am not looking for that benefit for the Foundation. I do not know if other board members would.
Another benefit would be to help distribution, for example in providing all pressed dvd to ship in certain countries. We could press the DVD and get as an income exactly what the DVD costs us. This is a different benefit. And one which might possibly induce lesser costs in case of a problem.
I've said before that online distribution will never be sufficient to achieve the alternately stated goal of realizing "a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". I still think that's true.
But in any cases, it is not among goals of the Foundation to become publishers to make *profit*.
Of course not. Profit is merely a possible avenue to fund the achievement of the goals.
Distributing content in print form *is* not the purpose of Wikimedia. We may do it. It is not our declared goal.
Distributing content is one of the two stated purposes of Wikimedia (with creating it being the other one). Print form is simply a method of distribution. I see no philosophical reason it should be any more or less desirable than any other form.
Anthony
Anthere wrote:
I do not think it is necessary to comment on whether the editor had a good idea or not to make the wikijunior on big cats available for print. It seems pretty natural to think he made it in good faith. I did not have the opportunity to see the version, since it was removed from Lulu site.
Only temporarily... I hope.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org