Mark wrote
But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
-Mark
Same applies to NC images.
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------ Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom http://click.libero.it/infostrada19gen07
On 1/19/07, rfrangi@libero.it rfrangi@libero.it wrote:
Same applies to NC images.
Roberto (Snowdog)
There arew very few NC images for which a free equiv is not posible.
Not true. *if* we would allow NC, I bet it will be possible to persue a lot of institutions to give their images, paintings, texts etc away under the NC. So it does have a huge potential, also for pictures with on the short term no free equivalent. But that is not what this discussion should be about imho. I dont think we should be talking about what images we would like to use, i think we should talk about what we are *allowed* (legally) to use. And as I said already quite a while before, that is mostly a case for license-experts, copyright-experts, the foundation and their willingness to face a potential sue, and maybe as well the free software foundtaion, the writer of the GNU Free Documentation License. *If* it would be allowed by all those, it is time for us as community or maybe as every community by itself, to choose what licenses we *want* to use, taking into account what the possible consequenses are and what the costs to our ideals are. The first is more a fact, that we have to find out, and let some people do research to, the second is more an opinion. For the first I would suggest to ask experts to find this out, to ask the foundation to take a stand on this issue, to ask the FSF advice, and see whether it is _allowed_ or not. For the second question I would suggest to have a more structured and broad discussion, possibly on meta, where the discussion could be split into different topics, and the arguments can be collected in a way that one can keep oversight. Because who exactly is benefitting from this very discussion? We have very great texts here, but the problem is that probably only a small group reads this (due to the amount of text) and those in this group already took a stand, and wont be persuaded anymore. It makes little sense that way :) Please let someone set up a structured discussion on meta, so it will be easier to follow, and it will less be making people to quit foundation-l due to the amount of messages in their inbox (not everybody has gmail). I myself would prefer first _*at least*_ a guideline of the foundation, stating what the boundaries are within which we can move.
Lodewijk
2007/1/19, geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 1/19/07, rfrangi@libero.it rfrangi@libero.it wrote:
Same applies to NC images.
Roberto (Snowdog)
There arew very few NC images for which a free equiv is not posible.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/19/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Not true. *if* we would allow NC, I bet it will be possible to persue a lot of institutions to give their images, paintings, texts etc away under the NC. So it does have a huge potential, also for pictures with on the short term no free equivalent. But that is not what this discussion should be about imho. I dont think we should be talking about what images we would like to use, i think we should talk about what we are *allowed* (legally) to use.
Anything until the foundation gets the takedown notice however that approach is unhelpful.
*If* it would be allowed by all those, it is time for us as community or maybe as every community by itself, to choose what licenses we *want* to use, taking into account what the possible consequenses are and what the costs to our ideals are.
The foundation has rejected that position in the past. no reason to think they will do otherwise in future.
You know I've seen complaints that the foundation pays to much attention to en at the expense of other projects. Now I hope you see the other side of that.
geni wrote:
On 1/19/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Not true. *if* we would allow NC, I bet it will be possible to persue a lot of institutions to give their images, paintings, texts etc away under the NC. So it does have a huge potential, also for pictures with on the short term no free equivalent. But that is not what this discussion should be about imho. I dont think we should be talking about what images we would like to use, i think we should talk about what we are *allowed* (legally) to use.
Anything until the foundation gets the takedown notice however that approach is unhelpful.
Yes, except that I don't see it as unhelpful. At the same time I do not believe that we should be posting indisputably protected random material for the sole purpose of getting a reaction from those we already know will react adversely. That would be a wilfull violation.
Talking about the images that we want is the path to talking about what is allowed. If we don't want the image in the first place it doesn't matter if it's allowed. Talking about what is allowed in an empirical vacuum is a clear path to unrealistic answers.
*If* it would be allowed by all those, it is time for us as community or maybe as every community by itself, to choose what licenses we *want* to use, taking into account what the possible consequenses are and what the costs to our ideals are.
The foundation has rejected that position in the past. no reason to think they will do otherwise in future.
You know I've seen complaints that the foundation pays to much attention to en at the expense of other projects. Now I hope you see the other side of that.
Adopting a common license as a basis to build from is a sensible decision. (Wikinews already uses a different licence from everyone else.) I think that this still allows projects some variation in how the licence will be interpreted. In dealing with fair use, AFAIK the licences themselves are silent on the matter. Any kind of dominance on the Board has its downside, whether it's dominance of a language (like English), or political entity (like the United States or the European Union).
Ec
On 1/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yes, except that I don't see it as unhelpful.
Then youtube and flickr are that way. For the time being this project will continue to care about copyright to an extent greater than following DMCA requirements.
At the same time I do not believe that we should be posting indisputably protected random material for the sole purpose of getting a reaction from those we already know will react adversely. That would be a wilfull violation.
On the part of the uploader yes.
Talking about the images that we want is the path to talking about what is allowed. If we don't want the image in the first place it doesn't matter if it's allowed. Talking about what is allowed in an empirical vacuum is a clear path to unrealistic answers.
Could you clarify your point here.
geni wrote:
On 1/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yes, except that I don't see it as unhelpful.
Then youtube and flickr are that way. For the time being this project will continue to care about copyright to an extent greater than following DMCA requirements.
If you think that youtube and flickr are so much the way to go, by all means go ahead; I certainly said nothing about them.and whatever their copyright policy may be. "Caring" (whatever you mean by that) about copyright need not imply paranoia that borders on ass-kissing.
Talking about the images that we want is the path to talking about what is allowed. If we don't want the image in the first place it doesn't matter if it's allowed. Talking about what is allowed in an empirical vacuum is a clear path to unrealistic answers.
Could you clarify your point here.
It means that as long as your talking theoretically about images that you only hypothesizing your answers have no basis in fact. Courts like to reject cases that are based on hypothetical facts.
Ec
On 1/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you think that youtube and flickr are so much the way to go, by all means go ahead;
[[Irony]]
I certainly said nothing about them.and whatever their copyright policy may be.
You basicaly suggested following their copyright policy.
"Caring" (whatever you mean by that) about copyright need not imply paranoia that borders on ass-kissing.
That would be aa strawman. If we took that aproach commons would be rather less full.
It means that as long as your talking theoretically about images that you only hypothesizing your answers have no basis in fact.
En.Wikipedia has 692,119 media files. There is nothing theoretical.
Courts like to reject cases that are based on hypothetical facts.
I think people sueing us our our uploaders will not be talking about hypothetical cases.
effe iets anders wrote:
And as I said already quite a while before, that is mostly a case for license-experts, copyright-experts, the foundation and their willingness to face a potential sue, and maybe as well the free software foundtaion, the writer of the GNU Free Documentation License.
The fact is that there has been no corpus of case law built up relating to free licences of any kind. These experts are guessing just as much as anybody else. Risk tolerance, and the willingness for the Foundation to face a law suit is important, but so too is the recognition that there are numerous steps between where we are now, and a full-blown lawsuit, and these usually include many opportunities to withdraw.
I would suggest to have a more structured and broad discussion, ..., where the discussion could be split into different topics, and the arguments can be collected in a way that one can keep oversight.
Yes, but that demands an awful lot of focus and concentration from people. ;-)
Because who exactly is benefitting from this very discussion? We have very great texts here, but the problem is that probably only a small group reads this (due to the amount of text) and those in this group already took a stand, and wont be persuaded anymore. It makes little sense that way :) Please let someone set up a structured discussion on meta, so it will be easier to follow, and it will less be making people to quit foundation-l due to the amount of messages in their inbox (not everybody has gmail). I myself would prefer first _*at least*_ a guideline of the foundation, stating what the boundaries are within which we can move.
I don't know about meta; I very seldom go there anymore. Some of us are more accustomed to going through the mailing lists than watching a number of separate pages on meta., though I admit that it could be easier to keep the discussion a little more organized there.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org