[Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 13:41:47 UTC 2007
It is irrelevant when the Dutch Wikipedia crowd votes both on the ESA
images and on the Wikipedia only; they are explicitly prohibited by the
draft resolution. The best it does is that images that are in these two
categories will only be mandatory deleted in 2008 and not sooner.
Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the
Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is
probably much easier to just use Commons.
When you post an unfree picture it does not matter at all how it is
unfree; the license is in and of itself irrelevant. The saving grace for
such material is that it will be tagged as "FAIR USE". With the license
registered as well, it indicates under what conditions it is available
otherwise. Consequently ND or NC material that is ALSO fair use will be
replaced and deleted once alternative material is available. ND and NC
material that is not fair use will be deleted in 2008.
A key thing you forget is that the legal council is part of the process
of approving any ESA. The option is not open to allow for NC or ND works
under a local ESA proposal. The legal council is bound to reject any
such proposals. This is not democratic and intentionally so, this is a
consequence of it being a WMF resolution.
When some people have opinions that are not shared by the majority of a
community, with the majority opinion in line with the "Licensing Policy
Resolution", they will find that they are entitled to their opinion. It
will however not be the policy of that community.
Peter van Londen schreef:
> If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves
> that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the
> Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one:
> allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are
> according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and
> But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing
> non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just
> outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the
> freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use
> images. That would be
> I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to
> cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find
> a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest
> community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities
> to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members
> not reading this list, will use this.
> The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who
> have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is
> described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures
> under the EDP (that is speculation though).
> I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception
> for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.
> Kind regards, Londenp
> 2007/2/21, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com>:
>> On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
>>> the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
>>> claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
>>> even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
>>> as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
>> That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
>> previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
>> can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
>> whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
>> ND or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
>> should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
>> reserved under than policy.
More information about the foundation-l