[Foundation-l] Mission & Vision statement update

Erik Moeller erik at wikimedia.org
Thu Apr 26 23:57:12 UTC 2007

Once again, the change was made based on discussions on this very list
about the ambiguity of "free license":
(and following); it has nothing to do with formats.

On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/26/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I do not think anyone can reasonably claim that the change came as a
> > > > total surprise. The issue of updating the mission statement has been
> > > > mentionned as early as october 2006.
> > >
> > > Quite the contrary, I most specifically claimed that the specific
> > > emendation of "free licence" to "free content licence" was made in a
> > > fashion that did not observe the niceties of feedback from the
> > > community in any reasonable form. That "change" is the only *change*
> > > that I am challenging, and _yes_ I do think it is reasonable to claim
> > > that it will have not been reviewed by any great section of the
> > > community in any significant way.
> > >
> > Am I the only one who is confused as to what the significance of the
> > change from "free license" to "free content license" means?  I've read
> > the discussion by you and Erik on this, but I still don't get it.
> >
> > Erik says this is a clarification.  What was unclear which is being
> > clarified?
> I think this is the crux of the matter. If the intent is to uphold the
> longstanding stance we have been keeping, as attested by numerous
> postings on the list by many figures of stature within wikimedia
> operations, that we do infact take a clear stance against encumbered
> file formats, this is not a clarification at all, but can be (perhaps
> contrivedly, but nevertheless) interpreted as retreating from support
> of formats that are unemcumbered. If that is the gloss put on the
> change of language by those outside our community, that would be sad
> indeed.
> > Jussi-Ville says that the change eliminates "content in formats that
> > are under free licence".  What would be an example of such content?
> > Does this mean the WMF would support non-free content under an open
> > format?  Or are you saying that the new language allows for free
> > content in non-free formats?
> No, to be precise, I don't think the change eliminates content, but it
> does remove explicit commitment to formats under free licence. If it
> did not, why would Eric state that "adding" coverage of the same would
> be something we could envision in the future.
> My understanding is that "free licence" covered also the file formats
> being unencumbered, and specifying that *only* the content need be
> freely licenced is a backtracking of a serious significance.
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Peace & Love,

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

More information about the foundation-l mailing list