Message: 4 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:08:25 +0100 From: Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Proposal for an allrightsreserved.wikimedia.org website To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTikSY-eAR4+T8yyopXXBJc3Q3u2uR2P3OG_e5-VY@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 1 February 2011 22:27, Blurpeace blurpeace@gmail.com wrote:
so we can remove two sentences from project policy?
Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than just ?able to use?, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply distinguish the non-free files from the free rest).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
Whats being proposed here doesn't directly fix that, since if you setup multiple foreign repositories (at least how the code currently work), other people using you as a forign repository can get to foreign files through you. However, it'd probably make the coding required to exclude such files significantly easier.
Someone else said:
But. there's no reason why the two should be technically separated. It's already been practically divided by categories. It's not considered unnecessary faff just by techs; any pragmatic person would agree.
Has any of the ops people actually said this would be annoying or in anyway difficult to set up. I know things get much more complicated when you're dealing with 800 wikis, one of which is in the top 6 (or whatever) sites of the internet, but still - this looks like about 5 extra lines in one config file (assuming meta is used so a new wiki isn't set up). The only complicated bit might be make global image links work (but then again, there may be complications i just don't see).
-bawolff