[Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent
Milos Rancic
millosh at gmail.com
Sun Apr 6 20:15:33 UTC 2008
Mike, thank you for your comment. While you said something which is
more or less known, it is good to hear them clearly worded by our
lawyer.
If you are not able to predict what will be after the changes, I would
really like to know (again, from your) did WMF team made a strategy
for the next things:
- Some projects (I think all francophone, but I am not sure) are using
strictly GFDL 1.2. It is not because they are generally not willing to
switch to CC-BY-SA, but because of legal implications of "... or any
later version..." in their countries. Do you have an idea how to solve
that kind of problems? Anything is better than having maybe a couple
of very big projects incompatible with the rest of the projects --
because it is not a question of usability of Wikimedian materials, but
a question of functionality of the most important working process of
Wikimedia community: writing a free knowledge. This is something which
should be known publicly ASAP.
- How will be applied "... or any later version..." clause when we
adopt CC-BY-SA? This raises two questions: (1) Would we again make the
same problem as we have it now with the projects which are using
exclusively 1.2 or there is an idea how to address that problem? (2)
How would it be decided to switch from one version of CC-BY-SA to
another? This is, also, something which should be known publicly ASAP.
I think that it is very important to have such possibility. Laws are
changing, legal systems are changing and we need a possibility to
address all important issues in the future.
For the third question I would be content only with "yes/no" answer
(while I would appreciate an answer with an explanation): Did you made
a legal strategy of switching from CC-BY-SA to some other license if
something goes wrong? If CC-BY-SA 12 would be unacceptable for us, we
would have a limited (while not so short, I hope) time to switch from
CC-BY-SA 11 to something else until legal and social changes will
obsolete it.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> This is an attempt to respond to Milos's questions about my opinion of
> the efforts to harmonize GFDL and CC-BY-SA and to migrate Wikipedia
> content to a better free but still strong copyleft licensing system
> than we've got now. There are very many details that have to be
> addressed in this process, and I won't try to relate all of them. What
> I'll do instead is explain my thoughts about this process in a way
> that I hope addresses Milos's concerns. I'm going to number these
> points for reference.
>
> 1) In my opinion, GFDL has been a very successful licensing system in
> terms of fulfilling the function it was designed for -- keeping
> software documentation for free software free. It is impossible under
> GFDL for someone to use copyright law to lock down free software
> through unfree documentation. That is a great result.
>
> 2) GFDL's earlier versions have been less good for wiki-collaborative
> works, where authors and contributors may number in the hundreds or
> thousands even though the content in question (e.g. a Wikipedia
> article) may be very short compelled to software documentation. I
> could go into all the reasons for this, but those of you who've
> studied the GFDL already know them, and it can be argued pretty
> strongly that Wikipedia is not currently complying with GFDL fully,
> mainly because doing so would be unwieldy. (It should be noted,
> however, that even though Wikipedia may have compliance problems now,
> this hasn't generated legal problems for us, for the community, or for
> FSF.)
>
> 3) Creative Commons understands the value of GFDL and of strong
> copyleft philosophy. Many people are suspicious of Creative Commons
> because of the organization's efforts to deploy a range of different
> licenses, not all of which are free or strong copyleft -- but I don't
> think they should be suspicious, because Creative Commons's mission
> has always been to unable creators to make a range of choices about
> how they unbundle or distribute different rights under copyright law.
>
> 4) CC-BY-SA is the closest of all Creative Commons to GFDL, and that
> is why all discussions among FSF, CC, and the Foundation have focused
> on CC-BY-SA is the likely candidate for something that could be
> evolved into a GFDL-like license. There has been immense good faith
> in the discussions among these entities about the need for for a
> license that better fits how collaborations like Wikipedia operate.
> Not merely "assumed" good faith -- *actual* good faith, as evidenced
> in the great respect for one another's works that the three parties
> have shown.
>
> 5) Free Software Foundation is the steward of GFDL and its meaning, so
> my belief is that if we come up with an evolved license that seems to
> meet the requirements FSF imposes, but functions as well as CC-BY-SA
> does, and applies much better to collaborative works like Wikipedia,
> then we will achieved something great that furthers the philosophy of
> the free software movement, the free culture movement, and the
> Wikimedia movement.
>
> 6) We will rely to a very great extent on FSF's feedback, and on free-
> software and Wikimedian feedback, to make sure that we develop a
> license consistent with both our principles that, the greatest extent
> possible, better enables Wikipedia content have the strengths of GFDL
> without its weaknesses, and that enables entities like Wikipedia to
> adhere more consistently to the precise requirements of the license.
>
> 7) In theory, there may be legal challenges to migrating Wikipedia
> content to a future license (under the migration terms of existing
> licenses), but I don't think those challenges are greater than those
> Wikipedia faces under the current GFDL (and they're probably rather
> less, in my opinion).
>
> 8) Some individuals may be unhappy with the resulting licensing
> scheme, and my feeling is that the best solution in such cases is to
> assist those individuals in removing work they feel has been
> compromised by the migration. My belief, however, is that, if the FSF
> approves the resulting license (whatever we call it), the number of
> unhappy contributors will be relatively small, and the task of the
> contributors, with the assistance of the community and the Foundation,
> to modify contributed content in response to their complaints will be
> surmountable.
>
> 9) In the long run, I believe this effort not only will bring
> Wikipedia into better compliance with its own licensing, but also will
> make free-culture wikis even more popular and feasible.
>
> 10) There are always details and questions that can't really be
> answered until the license is deployed and undergoes interpretation,
> both by the community and (if necessary) in the legal system. If
> there's anything that legal training teaches you, it's that the
> consequences of any legal change are rarely entirely predictable. But
> that is why FSF and CC have used migration clauses in their licenses
> (and in particular
> in the later versions) -- they both recognize that a legal construct
> may have to adapt itself over time to new interpretation and
> application problems.
>
> I am pretty certain I have not answered everyone's concerns here, but
> I have tried to give a broad overview as to my view of the ongoing
> negotiations among FSF, CC, and WMF. I support them and am part of
> them because I believe that the outcome will put us in a better place
> in terms of compliance with our license and in terms of fulfilling our
> larger mission, to bring the world's information to everyone in the
> world for free.
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> Right now,
> On Apr 6, 2008, at 4:46 AM, foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> wrote:
> > Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
>
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent
> > (Gerard Meijssen)
> > 2. Re: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent
> > (Milos Rancic)
> > 3. Re: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent
> > (Gerard Meijssen)
> > 4. Re: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent
> > (Gerard Meijssen)
> > 5. Re: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent
> > (Milos Rancic)
> > 6. Re: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent (geni)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:57:52 +0200
> > From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement
> > of Intent
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <41a006820804060357r37fb4159ye0a0aa804a1cefc6 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:03:13 +0200
> > From: "Milos Rancic" <millosh at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement
> > of Intent
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <846221520804060403u2155ecbu1aafc6d5e10b2ec6 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:04:51 +0200
> > From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement
> > of Intent
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <41a006820804060404n2d6935c4k9b10e69abc61499a at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> >
> > Geni,
> > It is fine that you do not like the practices of the RIAA of the
> > Getty (what
> > Getty :) ) I am with you on this one. This does however not change the
> > argument that any and all "share alike" licenses are restrictive in
> > nature.
>
> > It does not change the fact that you cannot use "share alike"
> > material in
> > academic papers.
> >
>
> > You will also have to agree with me that material that is licensed
> > under a
> > Free/Open license cannot be used together with material licensed under
> > another Free/Open license in a round trip way. Much information
> > needs to be
> > and is recreated because of the curse of incompatible licenses. It
> > is the
> > end-user that suffers.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
>
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> Absolutely, you are completely right that when using "share alike"
> >> licensed
> >>> material you have to play by its rules. No mistake there. Let there
> >> also be
> >>> no mistake that this *is *a restrictive practice and where you state
> >> that
> >>> there is an ongoing argument about the use in academic papers, you
> >>> implicitly agree that the use of "share alike" material is prevented
> >> for
> >>> many academic papers.
> >>
> >> Yes but by the journal publishers. Weak copyleft will make little
> >> difference in this case. See
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726473.300-physicists-slam-publishers-over-wikipedia-ban.html
> >>
> >>
> >>> I do know about the existence of CC-by. I am grateful that there
> >>> is a
> >> lot of
> >>> material that cannot be copyrighted anyway. I am equally grateful
> >>> that
> >> this
> >>> is the kind of material that has most of my interest.
> >>>
> >>> PS by saying "our rules" you either intentionally exclude or
> >> intentionally
> >>> include. When we discuss the merits of licenses there is no need for
> >> either.
> >>
> >>
>
> >> Getty and the RIAA play by one set of rules and requires anyone using
> >> their content to play by those rules. Free software plays by a
> >> different set of rules and requires everyone using that code to play
> >> by that set of rules.
> >>
> >> --
> >> geni
>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >> foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:07:13 +0200
> > From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement
> > of Intent
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <41a006820804060407k7a1bb279j59130587f9217fb9 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:23:57 +0200
> > From: "Milos Rancic" <millosh at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement
> > of Intent
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <846221520804060423g700fcf9fqad49529b486f9f76 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:45:53 +0100
> > From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement
> > of Intent
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <f80608430804060445h7df46045r9a285e5cc71b49af at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> >
> > On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Geni,
> >> It is fine that you do not like the practices of the RIAA of the
> >> Getty (what
> >> Getty :) ) I am with you on this one. This does however not change
> >> the
> >> argument that any and all "share alike" licenses are restrictive in
> >> nature.
> >
> > Technically so is anything not in the public domain in a jurisdiction
> > without moral rights.
> >
> >> It does not change the fact that you cannot use "share alike"
> >> material in
> >> academic papers.
> >
> > That is not universally the case.
> >
> >>
> >> You will also have to agree with me that material that is licensed
> >> under a
> >> Free/Open license cannot be used together with material licensed
> >> under
> >> another Free/Open license in a round trip way. Much information
> >> needs to be
> >> and is recreated because of the curse of incompatible licenses. It
> >> is the
> >> end-user that suffers.
> >> Thanks,
> >
> > The statement by CC is part of the effort to solve this problem.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 45
> > ********************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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