[Foundation-l] Clarification to existing resolutions

Yonatan Horan yonatanh at gmail.com
Sun May 20 16:57:52 UTC 2007

"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to
upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for
almost all portraits of living notable individuals."

I think a resolution needs to be as unambiguous as possible so we don't get
people in the different communities interpreting them in a way that fits
what they think policy should be. For example, what exactly does "reasonably
expect" mean?

Also, regarding this:

"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable
rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed

Does each file need to have a fair use rationale on the image page, or does
there need to be an applicable rationale that could in theory be used to
explain the usage of this image (but doesn't necessarily need to be on the
image page)?

"By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per
the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted."

Why isn't there a deadline by which the projects need to adopt an EDP? As of
right now there's only the March 23, 2008 deadline when all images that
aren't free and don't fall under the EDP will be deleted but I think it's
reasonable to expect an EDP to be written within, say, 6 months. Also, what
sort of help will the foundation offer in the creation of these EDPs?


On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >>I agree with this.  But "WMF office staff" should be more specific,
> >>unless the intention is for each individual staff member to interpret
> >>things individually (and therefore inconsistently).
> >>
> >>
> >Once we have an ED, it will be their job to interpret the board's
> >policies and they will tell the rest of the staff what to do - that's
> >what an ED does. Until that point, things are a little vague. That's
> >an unavoidable consequence of not really having anyone in charge,
> >which is why finding an ED should be (and I believe is) a top
> >priority.
> >
> I agree that an ED is needed, and that once that person is chosen it
> would be easier to find common ground between him and the Board about
> just what the policy means.  The also evident fact that things are a
> little vague for now should not be an excuse for passing policies that
> are even more vague.
> Ec
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list