[Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
Birgitte SB
birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 24 08:10:25 UTC 2011
The license can only call upon the law. Any attempts to plaster over the
underlying deficits in the law are just that:plaster. We often seem to pretend
the licenses are all smooth and perfect, but just because they can't be
substantially smoothed and perfected any further doesn't mean that people who
can feel slight cracks in them are hallucinating.
Perfectly rational licensing which works universally well is not an really
option. There just isn't a rational schema of copyright law for such a license
to call upon. But I think the CC licenses work well enough; as well as we can
realistically hope for.
Birgitte SB
----- Original Message ----
> From: Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 7:10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with
>the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
>
> If that is the case (As I understood this has never yet been tested in
> court, but I would appreciate any links to any jurisprudence, although we
> probably should start a new thread) then the point I tried to make still
> stands: a license should work in every medium. Whether the uploader makes
> restrictions to the applicability of the license does not matter, we should
> just avoid that merely because of the license the work cannot be used in a
> certain medium. I hoped to direct the discussion a bit into a helpful
> direction, but I guess my email is only leading to different side tracks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2011/2/23 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
>
> > Hoi,
> > If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular license,
> > it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for instance print or
> > do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot claim the same right on
> > the same object in a higher resolution.
> >
> > A license is given for what is provided in the way it is provided. What you
> > can or cannot do with is depends on the license.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Just to make a clarification:
> > >
> > > If you have copyright on a "thing" (with the lack of a better word) in
> > one
> > > medium, you also have it in another. If a text or image is copyrighted in
> > > print, it is copyrighted online. That is what I meant with universal in
> > > this
> > > context, sorry if I was confusing.
> > >
> > > Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content
> > truly
> > > re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to "publish"
> > > it
> > > - print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an
airplane
> > > and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply.
> > >
> > > Of course I am aware of all kinds of problems in copyright legislation
> > and
> > > how it sucks, I know that countries have different laws, one worse than
> > the
> > > other. But solving that would probably be slightly over
> > > stretching ourselves.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2011/2/23 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > > I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > thread.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal.
> > > > Copyright
> > > > is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal
> > > work-a-day
> > > > copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make
> > sense
> > > > if
> > > > they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright
> > world
> > > > people
> > > > pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid
> > having
> > > to
> > > > face
> > > > how ugly it is under the microscope.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people
> > > with
> > > > narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that
> > translate
> > > > poorly
> > > > into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not
> > > internationally
> > > > speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums.
> > > >
> > > > Birgitte SB
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > > From: Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:02:05 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big
> > > disagreement
> > > > with
> > > > >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't get it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Copyright is universal, so should copyright licenses be. There are
> > > > numerous
> > > > > exceptions to come up with, and we can discuss on this list into
> > > > eternity
> > > > > about those where Geni can come up with wonderful examples and
> > Teofilo
> > > > will
> > > > > come up with reasons why they fall outside his scope. Doesnt the
> > whole
> > > > fact
> > > > > that we have this discussion proof the point already and remove the
> > > > > necessity of such?
> > > > >
> > > > > The point is that GFDL has impracticalities to some people. Whether
> > > you
> > > > also
> > > > > have these impracticalities does not really matter, as long as some
> > > > people
> > > > > experience them as such, because it limits re-use.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is, should Wikimedia Commons favor one license over the
> > > > other,
> > > > > or even discourage the use of some subset of free licenses?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that offering a default license is great - it is a major
> > > > > simplification of the upload process and increases the odds that
> > > someone
> > > > > will make an upload. Because be honest: most authors don't care,
they
> > > > want
> > > > > their content uploaded to Wikipedia. If that requires them to release
> > > > some
> > > > > rights they won't commercialize anyway, they are likely willing to do
> > > > so. No
> > > > > matter the conditions. If they would be required to make a silly
> > dance
> > > > > through walkthrough license schemes, they will just get frustrated
> > and
> > > > cut
> > > > > off the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course we can have an advanced upload scheme where people like
> > > > Teofilo
> > > > > can pick all complicated licenses they like or even type their own
> > > > personal
> > > > > release which then can be judged by the community - but please
don't
> > > > bother
> > > > > the regular uploader with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Lodewijk
> > > > >
> > > > > 2011/2/21 Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2011/2/21 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
> > > > > > (...)
> > > > > > >> I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well yes thats rather the problem. There are also slideshows
> > with
> > > > > > > actual physical slides. I've got some around somewhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > geni
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People who work with actual physical slides are unlikely to
> > > > > > incorporate contents from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is online. If they
> > > > > > bother to create a physical slide out of content from Wikipedia,
> > > they
> > > > > > must have a computer with an internet connection, so it is not
> > > > > > difficult for them to upload the equivalent of the slide they
> > > created
> > > > > > at Wikimedia Commons, or on imageshack if it is not an educational
> > > > > > content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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