[Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi.
You got it completely backwards. Content tagged as NC and ND will on its 
own not be permitted. It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft 
resolution. When a project has an EDP, fair use may be permitted. This 
is indeed explicitly not in compliance with the notions of the 
freedomdefined.org. Fair use material may have a license, any license, 
including NC and ND. This material will be permitted on the basis of the 
EDP and on the basis of it being considered Fair use. I have never ever 
said that an EDP will allow for all NC or ND.

What I have said, but not in this thread, that there is no provision for 
the inclusion of logos of organisations. It is extremely useful to have 
logos in our encyclopaedia. The notion that these logos have to be 
available under a license that will allow people to make derivatives is 
moronic. In my opinion it is being over-zealous in how we provide a Free 
resource. The first criteria for our projects is providing information. 
This is forgotten in the argument. Now this is just one reason why it is 
good to have an EDP; this way a project can have logos of organisations 
on its articles and Commons can be what it is; only a resource of 
digital material available under a Free license.

Thanks
    GerardM

teun spaans schreef:
> Gerad,
>
> "fair use" does not comply with the freedom as in freedomdefined.org. There
> seems to be na rationale to allow fair use except that a large part of the
> english community objects.
>
> You keep repeating that NC and ND will be tolerated as "fair use", but so
> far I've read no rationale for regarding them as such. They are simply two
> totally different concepts.
>
> kind regards,
> teun
>
> On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> 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.