At 14:54 09-01-2004, Erik van den Muijzenberg wrote:
>Yes, but they are not interested in the French version. :-)
>It's a Dutch ISP and they are copying the Dutch database.
>(Apparently via a Perl-script.)
Brion just informed me it seems to be *not* a mirror.
Looks like it just fetches the requested page from our server,
reformats it to their own liking, and displays it.
As their server is not in production it hardly takes bandwith
or CPU-capacity.
Erik vdMb
At 09:16 08-01-2004, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>They cannot say they are a partner with us because they are not. They cannot
>also use our logo without our consent, which they do not have.
I agree.
>>There is no link to the GNU-license, and the
>>pages are not stating they were copied from
>>Wikipedia.
>
>This is in clear breach of our license. Somebody should tell them what needs
>to be done in order to comply. Otherwise they cannot use any Wikipedia
>content.
Yes, I read in a list of more or less complying mirrors it
is in breach of the license.
I wrote a rough version of a polite letter, and one of our
sysops will send it to the ISP.
>>However they have a link to the original
>>page on the Wiki-server.
>
>That much is good. You may want to tell them that simply hosting the printable
>versions of the French Wikipedia will put them into GNU FDL compliance (there
Yes, but they are not interested in the French version. :-)
It's a Dutch ISP and they are copying the Dutch database.
(Apparently via a Perl-script.)
>should be a link-back, statement that the article was retrieved from
>Wikipedia, and link to the GNU FDL on each printable page).
So I understood. Strange enough, not everyone on our Dutch
mailinglist agrees. But we will warn this Dutch ISP
nevertheless.
Thank you for your mail.
grtz,
Erik aka Muijz
Erik van den Muijzenberg
>...
>This ISP is using a Wikipedia-logo of their own,
>and on all pages the title-tag says '[ISP-name]
>partner Wikipedia'.
They cannot say they are a partner with us because they are not. They cannot
also use our logo without our consent, which they do not have.
>There is no link to the GNU-license, and the
>pages are not stating they were copied from
>Wikipedia.
This is in clear breach of our license. Somebody should tell them what needs
to be done in order to comply. Otherwise they cannot use any Wikipedia
content.
>However they have a link to the original
>page on the Wiki-server.
That much is good. You may want to tell them that simply hosting the printable
versions of the French Wikipedia will put them into GNU FDL compliance (there
should be a link-back, statement that the article was retrieved from
Wikipedia, and link to the GNU FDL on each printable page).
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:34, Delirium wrote:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
>> So what about registering Wikipedia (and also Wikimedia?) as a
>> trademark? I think we can afford it now, and I also think it's
>> important enough to do it. But in which countries? Maybe in those
>> where the languages of the biggest five or ten Wikipedias are spoken?
>>
>> If there is no reaction I consider this as approval and will organize
>> the registration for Germany. It costs 300 Euro and lasts for 10 years.
>Just as a datapoint. In Finland trademarks registered within the European
>Union can register internet domains (private individuals can not yet do
>so, though the registration is about to liberalize somewhat soon), and
>are protected against cybersquatters claiming the selfsame domain, at
>least in some circumstances.
>Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
Same in France, you can register .fr if you own the trademark. (the same european trademark)
Shaihulud
First I wanted to name this thread "How to spend the money", but I guess
it's better to open Pandora's box bit by bit.
So what about registering Wikipedia (and also Wikimedia?) as a
trademark? I think we can afford it now, and I also think it's important
enough to do it. But in which countries? Maybe in those where the
languages of the biggest five or ten Wikipedias are spoken?
If there is no reaction I consider this as approval and will organize
the registration for Germany. It costs 300 Euro and lasts for 10 years.
Kurt
Sean David Childers wrote:
>I think we would be crazy not to register wikipedia.
>So much effort has gone into this project and the
>copyright/patent/trademark laws right now seem
>to be strange at best, and almost random. I think
>by not registering wikipedia we are taking a risk.
I agree. This is especially true due to the fact that we now have nearly
US$40,000 in and offers all over the world to establish mirrors. With just
US$20,000 and our current equipment we will have the redundancy and a
scalable set-up needed to start having near-real-time web-server mirrors
around the world. So it is not like we are trading off a server for the
trademarks.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Gutza wrote on <wikiEN-L>:
>How about a Wikipedia "documenting" expressions in various languages? I
>mean, try googling around for "bring it on" (~542,000 matches), or "what
>goes around comes around" (~98,500 matches)--and try finding out what
>they /mean/. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find any explanation
>anywhere--I haven't.
>Now I'm aware such a topic is more "dictionary-like" rather than
>"encyclopedia-like"--I guess that's the first objection which comes to
>mind, although we already have a Wiktionary--, but is Wikimedia's
>purpose to only support encyclopedic projects, or to support projects
>which would be helpful?
>Also, think about the various languages which make use of
>expressions--due to the human nature, I expect all languages do--, and
>think how helpful such a (successful) project would be for people around
>the world trying to find out information about this and that obscure
>expression in some language. Bells and whistels included a la Wikipedia,
>as in cross-referencing languages, historical periods, you know the
>drill, I won't go into that.
>What do you think?
Some of this has been happening on Wikipedia already.
I tried to write a brief summary for this post, but it was impossible;
you might read [[en:Let's Roll]], [[en:Talk:AKFD]], and of course
[[en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (slogans)]] to see why.
But you have to look at edit history and see things in dynamic context,
and that is literally ''impossible'' now.
Suffice it to say that allowing [[Bring it on]] to be an article
on the English Wikipedia (I don't know about the other wikis)
produces an irreconcilable conflict between NPOV and good taste.
However ...
On Wiktionary, one ''expects'' page titles to be words or phrases.
By default, they are mentions rather than uses, if you like.
If Wiktionary can accept phrases (I don't see why not, but I don't know),
then Wikipedia authors can write "[[Fred Phelps]] paraded [[anti-gay slogan]]s,
most famously [[wiktionary:AIDS Kills Fags Dead|]] at the Sheppard's funeral"
on [[Matthew Sheppard]] without worry.
In any case, the history and usages of phrases in a worthy topic
for Wikimedia to cover, if Wikimedians can find a tolerable format
to discuss even the loathesome ones.
-- Toby
[Moved to wikipedia-l at mav's request]
Gutza wrote:
> How about a Wikipedia "documenting" expressions in various languages? I
> mean, try googling around for "bring it on" (~542,000 matches), or "what
> goes around comes around" (~98,500 matches)--and try finding out what
> they /mean/. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find any explanation
> anywhere--I haven't.
>
> Now I'm aware such a topic is more "dictionary-like" rather than
> "encyclopedia-like"--I guess that's the first objection which comes to
> mind, although we already have a Wiktionary--, but is Wikimedia's
> purpose to only support encyclopedic projects, or to support projects
> which would be helpful?
>
> Also, think about the various languages which make use of
> expressions--due to the human nature, I expect all languages do--, and
> think how helpful such a (successful) project would be for people around
> the world trying to find out information about this and that obscure
> expression in some language. Bells and whistels included a la Wikipedia,
> as in cross-referencing languages, historical periods, you know the
> drill, I won't go into that.
>
> What do you think?
I'd say this would be better as a part of Wikiquote than a separate project,
personally.
-- Jake
Could we please reach some type of decision on this so that we know what can
be posted on meta?
These are the columns I would like to have on the detailed part of the
spreadsheet:
Date , Time, Time Zone, Type, Status, Subject, Currency, Gross, Fee, Net,
Note, Payment Type, Balance
"Subject" and "Note" are the areas where the donors can write whatever they
want. So for this first publication we should contact anybody who added their
names and/or user names to that part to ask them if it would be OK for us to
publish that (or we could remove their name and/or user name from the
messages - even the messages if they wanted).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)