[Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun Apr 6 11:54:09 UTC 2008 

Hoi,
A lawyer argues the case according to the requirements of his paymaster. It
is exactly for this reason that different lawyers come with different
answers to the same question. This means that a legal opinion of one lawyer
is very much within reason worth the money that is paid for it and the money
available to argue the point.

With a blind trust in lawyers, why would you think our community needs to
form an opinion about this? In the end it is about power and trust. I trust
people like Jimmy, Erik and Mike to do wel for usl. I feel no need to second
guess them. My politics is about creating knowledge that is freely available
and as such I positively hate all the licenses that restrict me alike.

We all agree that the GFDL was not intended for use cases like Wikipedia and
we suffer for it. Now let us PLEASE harmonise the CC-by-sa and the GFDL in
order to have our practices be more in line with the letter of the license.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unlike in the case of GNU licenses, there are different
> interpretations of CC licenses made by lawyers from different
> jurisdictions inside of USA. Unfortunately, no of those
> interpretations cover Florida or California law explicitly.
>
> And now a little bit about Erik's life and work ;) I know how deeply
> Erik is involved in the free culture matters. Maybe he even has a
> clear picture of all legal consequences, according to his talks with
> different lawyers. But, I am not talking here about his possibility to
> process data and to make right decisions.
>
> Switching from one license to another is not only a matter of the
> Board and the Office, but a matter of all contributors to Wikimedia
> projects. So, I don't want to hear the product of Erik's procession of
> data, I want to hear (not via private email, but here!) a professional
> analysis of the legal consequences, especially applied for us, which
> means -- the implications related to Florida and California judicial
> systems.
>
> Trusting or not trusting to someone's abilities is one thing. A very
> opposite thing is keeping things transparent.
>
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> >  So everyone but a lawyer specialised in copyright law is an amateur? I
> >  always learned that the opposite of an amateur is a professional.
> Certainly
> >  Erik is one at that.
> >  Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  > He is not a lawyer. Being deeply involved and understanding social
> >  > processes don't qualify one person to be a lawyer who is able to
> >  > analyze possible judicial consequences of one legal act, like license
> >  > is.
> >  >
> >  > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> >  > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > > Hoi,
> >  > >  Why do you think particularly Erik is an amateur at this? I would
> say
> >  > that
> >  > >  one of the reasons why he was offered the job of deputy director
> of the
> >  > WMF
> >  > >  is because of his efforts in this field. Given that Jimmy is a
> board
> >  > member
> >  > >  of the CC and a board member of the WMF, I would not qualify him
> as
> >  > just an
> >  > >  amateur either.
> >  > >  Thanks,
> >  > >      GerardM
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >  On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
> >  > wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >  > The whole process was far from transparent and you are
> continuing
> >  > with
> >  > >  > writing rationalizations for keeping the process nontransparent.
> >  > >  > Changing the license is not only a matter of the Board, but it
> is a
> >  > >  > matter of all contributors.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > I don't remember that I've seen any professional analysis of
> what we
> >  > >  > are getting and what we are losing by switching from one to
> another
> >  > >  > license. There were only amateur arguing (including your,
> Erik's,
> >  > >  > mine, Gregory's, Gerard's...) pro and contra one or another
> license.
> >  > >  > (If there was such analysis, please, give me a link.)
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
> >  > wrote:
> >  > >  > > Milos Rancic wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions
> (I am
> >  > >  > >  > particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)?
> Also,
> >  > >  > while
> >  > >  > >  > I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't
> miss
> >  > the
> >  > >  > >  > information which you said now. So, please, may this
> process be
> >  > a
> >  > >  > >  > little bit more transparent?
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  I am not sure what I can tell you.  What do you want to know?
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of
> complex
> >  > >  > >  discussions.  It's the hands of lawyers who are working very
> >  > >  > >  thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues.
>  Discussions
> >  > have
> >  > >  > >  been going on for years, and things are very close to
> resolution.
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  --Jimbo
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  _______________________________________________
> >  > >  > >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  > >  > >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  > >  > >  Unsubscribe:
> >  > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > >  > foundation-l mailing list
> >  > >  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  > >  > Unsubscribe:
> >  > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  _______________________________________________
> >  > >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  > >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  > >  Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > foundation-l mailing list
> >  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

More information about the foundation-l mailing list