[Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

[Brianna Laugher]

On 11/01/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
 It is very hard to
> explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of fair
> use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a
> question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.

No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them
for some time.

These links may be useful:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Explaining_why_Derivative_Work_and_Commercial_Use_must_be_allowed

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-April/000163.html
post from Jimbo re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

BTW http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing lacks a Dutch
translation! Perhaps making at least a summary of the English one
would be useful.

A lot of small communities are struggling
> with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help
> those communities, to help especially the Dutch language wikipedia-community
> in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal advice
> with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would require
> in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from
> above, although I am usually no big fan of that.

I have made similar requests on behalf of Wikimedia Commons, and they
have gone unheeded, so I guess yours will as well. We all muddle
through as best we can. As much as we'd like to appeal to "experts",
the sad fact is that many little details are not clear for anyone,
even lawyers. Sometimes the only way you find out how the LawTM should
be interpreted is by taking someone to court. Probably we don't want
to find out that badly. :)

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise