[Foundation-l] Exemption Doctrine Policy

[GerardM]

Hoi,
Out of curiosity, the board insists on an "exemption doctrine policy" for
those Wiki projects that insist to make exemptions and include data that
does not conform to the official policy that has otherwise to be complied
with. As there are legal implications to not conforming to the official
policy, a risc is created that makes the WMF vulnerable to legal
proceedings. As the existence is officially mandated, the WMF seems to take
responsibility for these policies.

How can the WMF take the responsibility for "exemption doctrine policies"
when they are not written down and as a consequence cannot be checked
against pertinent laws in pertinent countries ??

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 8/8/07, Kat Walsh <kat at mindspillage.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/8/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/7/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
> > > guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
> > > foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
> > > rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
> > > for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
> > >
> > > Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
> > > "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
> > > whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
> > > the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
> > >
> >
> > "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an
> applicable
> > rationale..."
> >
> > "...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion
> > process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
> >
> > Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be
> mistaken,
> > but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in
> writing. My
> > current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement
> > explicitly.
> >
> > But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity,
> just
> > a nosy list member. ;)
>
> Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and
> boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and
> applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There
> just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for
> using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale
> exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if
> en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to
> set policy that way.
>
> (Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who
> are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no
> reason to think any would disagree.)
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>