[Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

[A. Özgür Erdemli]

While we consider the licenses we should not think only from Wikipedia point
of view. The philosophical idea is to sum all knowledge and give them to
everybody. An article here will be later maybe inside a mobile phone or in a
book or in a CD or on the television or carved on a stone... in anywhere in
the world. So licenses will get more and more complicated if you consider
all this possibilities. I believe, instead of adding new less free image
licenses, we should even get rid of Fair Use, and stick only to
*Free
*PD
*GFDL
*CC-by
*CC-by-sa
as commons do. Ohh yes, we will end up with less images, but we will get
free versions of some of them anyways. And we will not have any risk for the
future from license point of view. "Pure Free Content." Use is as much as
you want when you need. I don't want any complication that will stop me
sharing any knowledge from here. Isn't this our goal?

Dbl2010

On 1/10/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear David,
> >
> > knowing the Dutch language Wikipedia-community, I think almost everybody
> > will agree with me that it is no "easy" community. some communitymembers
> are
> > now trying to approve a non-free license on the Dutch language
> Wikipedia,
> > the CC-NC. This license is imcompatible with the GNU FDL, and I think
> that
> > it is, due to GFDL, not allowed to use it on Wikipedia on articles. It
> is
> > not something to have an opinion about really, it is or it isn't allowed
> by
> > GFDL. You can at most have another view on the license. I think it is
> very
> > very important that the Foundation makes it clear for once and for ever
> what
> > licenses are acceptable on the Wikimedia projects. It is very hard to
> > explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of
> fair
> > use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a
> > question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.
> >
>
> No we deal with that issue by useing the collective work clause (not
> it's proper name). Articles with images in are a collection of
> diffferent works thus the images can be under any lisence as far as
> the GFDL is concernded.
>
> > In the Dutch language community we have actually not a single expert on
> the
> > area of copyright and licenses. I doubt lot of other communities have.
> (With
> > an expert I mean someone who has studied law and is specialized in that
> > aera) So at the end people like you and me have to make this kind of
> > fundamental choises about licenses, even though we do not know what
> exactly
> > we are talking about, we are just guessing. (just assuming you are not
> one
> > of those experts, by coincidense) A lot of small communities are
> struggling
> > with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help
> > those communities, to help especially the Dutch language
> wikipedia-community
> > in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal
> advice
> > with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would
> require
> > in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from
> > above, although I am usually no big fan of that. So I second heartely
> Hay's
> > request, please bring some light in the darkness, and let the blind
> people
> > see again.
> >
>
> FSF publishes a list of lisences and describes them. While we
> dissagree over CC wikipedia tends to follow the defintions fairly
> closely:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
>
> Translations into a number of languages are linked to at the end.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>