I've obviously missed something the last few days - what happened with Mark? Has he been banned from the list? That seems a very extreme action. What's going on?
pippu d'angelo
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3
On the wikien list I had written:
> > By the way, this sentence contains at least one common misconception
> > about copyleft. Images only "become GFDL" if they are released by
> > their copyright holder under the GFDL. They don't automatically
> > become released under the GFDL.
Someone replied the following (privately, so I'm not sure if ey wants
eir name divulged):
> Well, there is one more case: If the copyright-holder mixes his
> own images with GFDL contents, the result, if distributed, should
> become GFDL, because of the "viral" (or "cascade") effect.
Now that I realize it was a private message I begin to suspect even
more that the person was simply being sarcastic, but since I wasted my
time writing a reply here it is:
No, that is specifically what I'm saying is *not* true (maybe you were
being sarcastic in which case I apologize).
If a copyright holder "mixes his own images with GFDL contents", i.e.
prepares a derivative work derived from GFDL content and his own
images, and does not release the derivative work under the GFDL, then
that copyright holder has committed copyright infringement (barring a
defense such as fair use, at least). The work is not *automatically*
released under the GFDL.
Like I said, a work can only be released under the GFDL if the author
intentionally grants a license. If they don't grant such a license,
then there may be an instance of copyright infringement, but there is
no automatic release under the GFDL. In this regard it is the same as
the GPL.
I just looked for a good description of this in Wikipedia, but I
really can't find one. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but Wikipedia
could really use some improvement in this regard. I was looking for a
detailed description complete with citations from prominent experts
and advocates on different ends of the spectrum (Eben Moglen, RMS,
Bill Gates, etc.). Anyway, the best I could find was in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft, under "Is copyleft "viral"?":
"Second, even when the included code is substantial enough to warrant
copyright protection, the remaining code will never automatically fall
under a copyleft license. What will happen is that it will not be
legal to distribute the derived work, unless the owner of the
remaining work put it under a compatible license (not necessarily
copyleft). If the work is distributed anyway, that is a simple
copyright violation, and will not affect the license of the work."
Anthony
On 11/28/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason people have been cracking down on fair use tagging is
> because if something is tagged as such but is not actually "fair use",
> then it is a copyright violation and puts us in a legally bad
> position. People have been generously mopping up some of the simple
> cases (i.e. where images are claimed as "fair use" but are not used in
> an encyclopedia article) with the sole intention of helping Wikipedia
> keep a "clean" legal status. The goal is to avoid getting sued and
> having Wikipedia donations spent on lawyers rather than new servers.
>
C'mon now, many ISPs will give notice before taking down an *alleged*
copyright infringement, even in the face of a DMCA takedown notice.
To take down something which the uploader explicitly claims to not be
a copyright infringement without even requesting clarification goes
beyond just avoiding getting sued.
For legal issues, that should be sufficient. Wait until actual
knowledge of infringement, or until a takedown notice is issued. Then
it's up to the uploader whether or not she wants to indemnify
Wikimedia using the DMCA put-back procedure.
Of course, that only resolves the legal issues. For images in the
encyclopedia itself, they should be free. If the uploader wishes to
indemnify all third-party users though, I guess that'd be acceptable
for images in the encyclopedia itself :).
> I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but I'm having a hard time
> understanding why you absolutely needed to have an image whose
> copyright was owned by someone else and not released freely kept on
> the Wikipedia servers even though it wasn't being used.
>
> FF
I can see your point there, but I believe the main issue was the lack
of notification, not the fact that the image was ultimately removed.
Anthony
On 11/28/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/05, Mike Finucane <mike_finucane(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to have to re-evaluate contributing to wikipedia if its based
> > on providing source material for commercial companies.
> >
> > Feel free to explain WHY you have this policy; but I have to say your
> > explanation above wasnt very tactful or conducive to goodwill on my
> > part.
>
> Basic problem: Wikipedia has a goal of producing an encylopedia. Not
> an encyclopedia limited only to people with Internet access - though
> internet access is certainly booming - but an encyclopedia accessible
> through other means. The long-term goal of this is, of course, the
> mythical Printed Version - it's still in the air as to whether this
> will ever be successful, but we do try and keep it in mind.
>
> But there's other options. In Germany, for example, there was a very
> successful DVD distribution of the German-language wikipedia; it was
> reformatted, put on DVD, and sold for ten euros(?). A large swathe of
> this went back to the Foundation, a small quantity went to production
> costs, and the residue went to the company that produced and
> distributed them. Given the remarkable sales, I assume they made a
> profit - asking on wikipedia-l would probably get some nice German to
> explain this in better detail.
>
If the restriction is that the use be "non-commercial", then it
doesn't matter whether or not they made a profit anyway. Selling DVDs
qualifies as commercial regardless of whether or not you make a
profit, and under my and probably most interpretations, it qualifies
as commercial even if done by a non-profit organization.
> This was very popular, and no doubt a good thing for the project - but
> it was a commercial venture, and had it contained non-commercial
> material it wouldn't have been able to go ahead, because the company
> was distributing it at more than cost. Any form of large-scale
> distribution is likely to fall afoul of non-commercial clauses, at
> some point, or at least to clash with them to such an extent that it
> becomes impractical to do the distribution at anything but a loss.
>
I wonder how much of the success of the German DVD compared to the
lack (AFAIK) of one for the English Wikipedia has to do with the lack
of fair use images in the German Wikipedia. I'm sure it's not the
only problem, the English Wikipedia is a lot larger and wouldn't even
fit on a DVD without some serious trimming anyway.
> Picking a random role, we'd love to provide, oh, a ten-dollar
> encyclopedia to Indian schools. But if the choice is providing a
> fifteen-dollar one with someone making a profit, or not being able to
> afford to provide a ten-dollar one at cost, then fifteen starts to
> sound pretty good.
>
> Yes, this can be avoided by cleaning out with-permission and
> limited-use images, but this itself provides another burden - the
> labour to filter images. If we only accept images which are known to
> be redistributable, then this presages that problem. We already do
> this with text, and the reason for the strong wording is because we
> recently tightened the standards on images.
>
> (Personally, I feel we are more insistent on only-free-images than we
> absolutely need to be, but...)
>
Probably more importantly than the trouble of cleaning out certain
images is the fact that we're much less likely to find or create free
images if we already have semi-free ones.
> I hope that explains matters.
>
It explains why en.Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial use images.
And it does so a lot better than some of the other explanations
(images *don't* have to be GFDL or even GFDL-compatible as some others
stated). But it doesn't explain why en.Wikipedia doesn't allow images
which are free for educational use (such as in an encyclopedia).
Personally I think this restriction should be relaxed and the one on
non-commercial images tightened. The goal of Wikipedia is to create
an encyclopedia, not provide images for people to use in commercials
or other non-encyclopedia productions.
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Anthony
On 11/28/05, Mike Finucane <mike_finucane(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> The reasons put forward on why images must be allowed to be profited
> from can be summarized thus:
>
> (1) "Maybe you should explain WHY you have the policy of not allowing
> people to "get rich" off your work first. There's nothing wrong with
> commerce. In fact, in today's society commerce is pretty much required
> for survival."
>
> In answer to that; I can only say that this seems to be the very
> antithesis of what I thought Wikipedia to be; people providing free
> material, for a free resource. How does Wikipedia justify its policy
> on not getting rich quick? I am not proposing a shutdown of western
> society (although given how the planet is going as a result, dredging
> sandworms for fuel, clearcutting the amazon for profit, one could go
> that way); I'm arguing that there should be a space for those who wish
> to contribute out of the good of their hearts, for a better, freer,
> society.
> I thought Wikipedia stood for this; apparently I was wrong, as also
> evidenced by reason (2):
>
"I'm arguing that there should be a space for those who wish to
contribute out of the good of their hearts, for a better, freer,
society." Huh? Of course there is a space. You're free to
contribute to Wikipedia out of the good of your heart. But you can't
restrict that contribution to only people who aren't making a profit.
I personally believe that we have a better, freer society *with* money
than without it. Distribution of information is not free, and by
being able to provide the distributors with a potential for profit you
allow greater distribution. But what can I say, I'm a huge believer
in the principles of capitalism and believe that capitalism is what
allows a society to be both free and successful.
Sure, you can try to restrict the cost solely to the distribution, but
this is splitting hairs. What about the cost of borrowing the money?
What about the cost of the labor in setting up the distributor? If
people are earning interest on this borrowed money, and employees are
getting paid for their contributions of labor, what does it matter if
these people are paid through loans and salaries or stock? Well, I'll
tell you one place it matters - stock is often much more efficient
tax-wise.
> (2) "On the other hand, have you considered getting rich off ours?... I
> hear that running Google ads on well-formatted copies of Wikipedia can
> be quite lucrative." and "commercial re-use of Wikipedia isn't limited
> to certain people, you can take part too."
>
> My purchase price, I'm afraid, is a little higher than that.
Yeah, I didn't really understand this point.
> ----------------------
>
> Having dismissed the most objectionable objections, we come to more
> reasonable ones.
>
> (3) "The goal of Wikipedia is "to create and provide a freely licensed
> and high quality encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in
> his or her own language....In order to achieve that goal...This
> necessarily includes... for-profit ... uses"
>
> I realize this has other implications, in terms of funding, but I'll
> deal with that later. First, I wish to disabuse the notion that
> "freedom" cant be gained unless and until everyone has made a buck from
> something freely given. Is love only truly free when someone pays for
> it? There is a perfectly acceptable, CC-nc designation, which means
> that everyone - including Bill Gates - can use the material as they
> wish. They are just prevented, for now, for all time, from buying out
> Wikipedia and copyrighting it. I'll come back to that.
>
I hope you do, because it doesn't make much sense.
Bill Gates can use the material as he wishes? What about using it on
his corporation's website? How about distributing it with every copy
of Windows?
> (4) "However, allowing for-profit uses can make the information even
> more widely available; for example, it encourages people to make
> derivative works that build on it, or to make and sell hard copies to
> other people."
>
> This becomes even more reasonable. However, at what price does
> accessibility come? A quick look around the web shows whats happening;
> commercial sites like About.com are encouraged to derivatize Wikipedia
> by loading the page with ads, as suggested by one of our
> commercially-minded contributers above. Does it REALLY help people to
> have a copy available on Ebay for $5? How about someone selling links
> to the site to gullible buyers at $1 a pop? I'm not convinced that any
> for-profit body has materially benefitted Wikipedia by having been
> derivatized, or sold as hard copies.
>
Thousands if not millions of people have first seen Wikipedia content
when they clicked on the "definition" link at the top of their Google
search, and came to Answers.com. Wikipedia has been distributed to
many, many more people because of this. More people are given free
access to human knowledge.
> (5) "if there are parts that have more restrictive licences (for
> example, no commercial use), a commercial redistributor would have to
> go through the entire encyclopedia checking the licence of every single
> illustration. "
>
> Looking at the wonderful system that is Wikipedia, and all the coding
> that went into it; it strikes me as strange that no filter can be
> written, such that a user cannot simply tick a checkbox, yielding a
> version of Wikipedia for his/her perusal consistent with any of the
> copyright classifications available. If a user ticks "not nc", for
> example, he would be able to see/download/pilfer everything which is
> "not nc" in wikipedia. It doesnt seem insurmountable.
>
Well, this is true to some extent, though "nc" and "not nc" would be
very hard to define. There are lots of different definitions as to
what is considered commercial and what isn't.
> Which brings us to our last, most reasonable proposition
>
> (6) "And our commercial mirrors bring in new business, make donations
> and have helped pay wages for Wikipedia employees."
> "put on DVD, and sold for ten euros(?). A large swathe of this went
> back to the Foundation"
>
> I have no objection to any use of the images, for non-profit use. That
> is, if Wikipedia makes money from selling disks to people, I'm fine by
> that, provided that the money is used to fund wikipedia. I *do* have a
> problem if someone -say a newspaper - lifts one of my images from
> Wikipedia, and uses it instead of paying for their own photography, and
> makes a profit therefrom. Now I'm not the legal expert here that most
> are, and I suppose "non-profit" use may not cover the generation of
> money by non-profit organizations. In which case, I dare say, the same
> people could find a way to write this and include it in the Wiki
> License. The sole remaining objection to me appears to be that people
> like me arent ponying up to donate cash to provide whats required to
> run Wikipedia. And that is, I guess, true. So we need to turn to
> Satan, and prostitute ourselves, so that some people will have access
> to free material.
It has nothing to do with Satan or prostitution as far as I can see.
And yes, you could say that any non-profit organization can use
Wikipedia for profit use. But you'd be surprised what that would
mean. The RIAA is a non-profit organization, for instance.
I also just don't see the purpose of the distinction. People are
going to "get rich" off your work either way, whether it's the hosting
companies and the hard drive companies and the Wikipedia employees or
whether it's the people who started up the company and brought the
idea to the rest of the world.
> And in response to those who ask me to consider the profit enterprises
> as only american-as-apple-pie patriots, Let me just respond that there
> are already many for-profit encyclopedias in existence. If Wikipedia
> becomes just another way for a corporation to make money, it will not
> improve over the already excellent content provided by these worthy
> capitalists.
>
Yes it will, because Wikipedia is and always will be *free*. That is
what will always separate Wikipedia from the traditional
encyclopedias.
> Let's be clear about the danger of consorting with the enemy (because
> like it or hate it, those who would fence in the commons are always at
> odds with those who would free resources to all); that Danger is seen
> in how Bill Gates has bought the rights to the digitial reproduction of
> huge amounts of Art that is (or should be) public domain. Bill Gates
> has seen to it that Java has become a little part of Windows.
Wikipedia can't be bought. The copyright is still held by the
individual contributors. And actually, by making Wikipedia
non-commercial only *that* would enable Wikipedia to be bought. If no
one could distribute Wikipedia commercially without permission of the
copyright holders, then Bill Gates could buy the rights to be the only
person allowed to distribute it commercially.
> Private
> enterprises now own the right to use turmeric as a medicine; and are
> patenting life forms. Yes, it is unfortunately true that anywhere one
> CAN make a buck, someone WILL be trying to capture it. "I hear that
> running Google ads on well-formatted copies of Wikipedia can be quite
> lucrative." What happens when Bill Gates, or Larry Ellison, or
> someone else builds a new and better gizmo, which makes the Internet
> obsolete?
We wind up with a new and better Internet! Sounds like a good thing.
> Or whatever; just say that the experience of Wikipedia
> becomes a thousand times better on it, than as it is at present. But
> the new format is proprietary. Sure the CONTENT is free - but the
> licensing of the new technology is not. And say that this fictitious
> company adds new material, such that wikipedia-old becomes obsolete?
> Who will use the free version anymore?
I really don't understand what you're getting at. If the free version
is still available, and no one uses it, then the other version must be
so much better that we'd have been incredibly stupid not to allow it
to exist.
> What if Google generates a
> superpedia; in which it uses Wikipedia as a base, but adds on vast new
> access to its own-sourced info?
Then the world is enriched incredibly, and Wikipedia is a tremendous success.
> Who will use Wikipedia then?
Probably most of the people who use it now, as well as many additional ones.
> Embrace and Extend has killed off more than one open-source before.
I can't think of an example of this. Has Red Hat killed Linux?
I guess you could say that Apple killed FreeBSD, but this wouldn't
really be accurate, and the BSD license is much different from the
GFDL.
> One of the most significant protections against this is the prohibition against
> for-profit use.
>
No, the biggest protection against this is copyleft (*). No one is
saying you can't copyleft your works you contribute to Wikipedia.
Just that you can't restrict commercial use.
(*)Actually, the biggest protection is probably the free market, but
that's really a different argument entirely.
> I would encourage people to consider other possibilities, other than
> engaging in or with the for-profiteers. One suggestion would be to
> sell and widely distribute DVDs, by some of the wikipedia wage-earners,
> all profits going back to pay for the system. Make it $20 for all I
> care. I dont even mind policies whereby other non-profits can use the
> free material.
>
> But embracing embrace and extend, is a dangerous gamble.
>
> postscript. I may contribute some images, I'll have to consider the
> matter more deeply now. Perhaps some images that no commercial company
> would want to use; or perhaps a resolution unsuited to commercial
> useage. I'll continue to contribute information; but the idea that
> someday some Mogul might squeeze Wikipedia out of existence, and
> incorporate its assets, just as surely as Netscape was lost to
> AOL-Time-Warner, will probably have an affect on my desire to help
> create something new. A world asset which was never saleable to the
> highest bidder.
Umm, Netscape was a for-profit company. And, in fact, Netscape was
*shareware* before AOL came along. That meant that businesses had to
pay for the product after using it for 30 days. AOL changed Netscape
to freeware, and then eventually open sourced the whole thing. Then
they spun it off into its own non-profit organization (Mozilla
Foundation).
Anyway, I don't see how "assets" come into play at all here. You
still own the copyright on images you submit. Wikipedia can't sell
that asset to anyone. In fact, Wikipedia has no control over who
follows or doesn't follow the license agreement at all. You still
have control over that. You just can't sue someone just because they
happen to be making a profit using your work.
Anthony
On 11/28/05, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Nyenyec N wrote:
> > What is the definitive source to read about which image licenses are
> > compatible with the GFDL?
> >
> > Or perhaps a GFDL text with non-GFDL images added doesn't count as
> > derivative work?
>
> There is a slightly related discussion on meta,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F Do
> fair use images violate the GFDL?
>
> In it Jimbo seems to argue that the addition of fair use images does not
> mean that the images become GFDL, but rather that the usage of the
> specific images in such a way become compliant with the GFDL. At least
> that is my reading of the comments. The position I base that upon is
> his argument:
>
> "The experts I have consulted on this (including Richard Stallman and
> Larry Lessig) find no merit in this argument. Remember that the GNU FDL
> works inside the framework of copyright law. The GNU FDL is a way for
> authors to conditionally give up some of the rights they have under
> copyright. It is not a claim to be able to impose additional
> restrictions above and beyond what copyright grants. Since fair use is
> legitimate in copyrighted works, an author may use fair use. But this
> doesn't preclude that author from releasing the work under the GNU FDL,
> because the GNU FDL does not pretend to impose ad"
Actually, it's pretty clear that Jimbo didn't properly explain the
argument to those experts. Of course fair use is legal. But if
sizeable portions of GFDL text are being taken and distributed without
permission then it is unlikely that that would be considered fair use.
There are two potential copyright infringements going on when GFDLed
text is mixed with copyrighted images. There is the copyright on the
image, which might be excused by fair use, and there is the copyright
on the text, which might be excused by either fair use or the GFDL.
Just because the image is being used under fair use doesn't mean the
text is as well.
I think relying on the aggregation clause of the GFDL is much more
appropriate here. The fair use argument doesn't really make any
sense, and I doubt that Stallman or Lessig were presented with an
accurate description of the argument if they said they found no merit
in it. Since AFAIK there are no direct quotes from them available
it's really hard to say, though.
Anthony
On 11/27/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-November/032708.html
>
> Requests have *doubled* since September. We're just about keeping up
> with demand ...
>
> And remember that this top-40 website is run by one paid admin/developer
> and some volunteers on a shoestring by a nonprofit ...
>
>
> - d.
Nothing like seeing the problem and the solution all in one handy email.
Dear Sir/Madam greetings!
With due venerations it is stated that i am an Afghan citizen, and Afghani
or Pashto is my mother tongue. I was very glad when I saw in your website
that you have a separate Wikipedia in the mentioned language
http://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, but unfortunately the website is not
developed to the standereds of other Wikipedia webpages.
I am applying for the voluntary developer of Pashto language Wikipedia. Now
if you please let me understand that why is it possible for other users of
pashto Wikipedia that they can change the appearance of the first page
according to their own wills.
I think you guys should limit the access of Wikipedia editors. I mean those
who are registered users of Wikipedia should have access in editing the main
page of Pashto Wikipedia.
There was one thing else that i wanted to make clear, and that is if it is
possible to change the navagation tools, search bar and tool box options
into main language. I mean it is easy to translate and replace it with the
english language that has been used in the main page.
Please provide me with some informations about how can i become a permanent
voluntary editor of Pashto Wikipedia. I promise in developing the pushto
wikipedia according to the standards of other wikipedias.
yorus faithfully
Ahmed Najib Biabani
--------- Mensagem Original --------
De: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Para: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org <wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Assunto: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese
Data: 22/11/05 15:27
> On 11/22/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems quite interesting to me that this is at least the second
> > request we've seen with regards to Portugues do Brasil.
> >
> > A while back, somebody was adding pages in "Brazilian" at
br.wiki
> > (really for the Breton language), too.
> >
> > I certainly don't think it needs a separate Wikipedia, but it's an
> > interesting consideration.
> >
> > Mark
>
> Is this really significantly different from the division in English
> around the world, or various regional dialects of French?
>
> --
> Sam
Sorry, I don´t know about the division in English or French dialects.
In Brazil, the language has a lot of verbs and words that has different
meanings to the same in European Portuguese.
Also the correct writing is different in a lot of ways.
The interface of almost all the programs is translated to Brazilian
Portuguese to be more accepted in the country. "File" is "Ficheiro" in the
portuguese translation and "Arquivo" in Brazilian translation. "Display" is
"ecrã" in portuguese and "tela" or "monitor" in Brazil. The "pt" is changed
to "pt-br" to eliminate the confusion.
You can say a whole phrase that has two different meanings in Portugal and
Brazil, using the same words.
That could lead to interpretation mistakes from time to time.
Also there will be confusion on the correct writing, since the articles are
not written in the correct way used in Brazil.
The language (with all the differences) is used by 180.000.000 people.
I don´t know if that is significant difference to the Wikipedia standards,
to justify a Brazilian Portuguese project. It is for a lot of other
projects.
Is it significant ?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
__________________________________________________________
Mensagem enviada usando o Webmail da ViaLink ver. 2.7.8