[Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that 
this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant. The 
material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use 
trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish 
Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has 
to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).

It is therefore really simple. On its own ND and NC will not be 
permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Peter van Londen schreef:
> I politely disagree,
>
> This will be the case when you leave too much room for interpretations.
> By using an EDP approach, you leave all possibilities open for
> non-conforming material to the freedomdefined definition. You might close
> the gap of too far off EDP's with a control by anyone, any committee
> (although there seems to be a disagreement between Kat and Eric about that),
> but allowing images within an EDP conflicting with the freedomdefined
> definition, like Fair Use, opens up in principle all possibilities for
> communities to do whatever they want, conflicting with the original
> definition.
>
> I asked you to explain me how you can use fair use images for commercial
> exploitation and for derivative works: you could not David. But I am not
> opposed to using Fair Use, as long as there are no juristic detrimental
> implications for the Wikimedia projects, but then be clear about it. The
> draft can be adjusted, so that interpretations can be minimized.
>
> Forget about an EDP: use the freedomdefined definition, with two exceptions:
> Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish Wikinews.
> Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
>
> Kind regards, Londenp
>
> 2007/2/22, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>   
>> On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh <kwalsh at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too far
>>> about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing
>>> misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive side...
>>>       
>> I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that could
>> possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the
>> obviously misguided opposing view.
>>
>>
>> - d.