[Foundation-l] Clarification to existing resolutions
saintonge at telus.net
Fri May 18 19:24:30 UTC 2007
Jakob Voss wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>Only if the license establishes restrictions _beyond_ the existing
>>>moral rights. If it merely recognizes whichever rights a jurisdiction
>>>grants, I do not see an issue with it.
>>The text of the license appears to claim such rights outside said jurisdictions.
>Yes it *appears to claim*. I am not a lawyer so I cannot tell you nor do
> the laypersons that are currently discussing this issue inside the
>Wikimedia community instead of just directly contacting CC.
>By the way I find the energy to find problems in CC 3.0 really
>disturbing. This motivation should better be used to develope practical
>solutions to the dilemma of non-compatibility bewteen GFDL and CC-BY-SA.
> I bet that far the most majority of people interested in free
>knowledge are not interested such license details - they just want to
>share knowledge! By the way with CC 3.0 there is an explicit place to
>list compatible licenses: http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
>>>I'm not convinced that the current CC licenses establish any new
>>>restrictions, and those who claim that they do should take that
>>>discussion directly to Creative Commons. There is no malicious intent
>>>here on the part of CC, and so I don't see why people don't try to
>>>work out any issues that there may be directly with the people who
>>>_wrote_ the license.
>>As lovely people as they may or may not be, CC's interests are not our
>Of course there are some different interests, and neither CC nor "we"
>are entities with homogeneous and static oppinions. But the main goal
>"free information" is the same. Factionalism by searching for
>differences between CC and Wiki*edia instead of commonalities is
>counterproductive. I really doubt that the differences of interest
>between CC and Wikimedia Foundation are as large as the differences of
>interests withing the Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia project
What's disturbing in this is that Erik's resolution was to amend WMF
policy. He certainly has a right to make such proposals, whether or not
the Board ultimately adopts the resolution. Now we are talking about
proposed changes to Creative Commons policy. Trying to merge CC's
interests with ours in these circumstances raises a perception of hidden
More information about the foundation-l