[Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet

[luke brandt]

geni wrote:
> On 1/14/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
>> Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
>> appeared to be 'no.'
> 
> Not exactly:
> 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By
Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and
Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was
posted 18 months previously. It is still true that the answer to my
question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by
the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose
from, or we could formulate a custom one. Now the current meeting could
maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted.....

On Jimmy Wales's general position regarding the GFDL, see this
discussion thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_living_people#Exceptions_for_certain_living_people

> 
>> So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on
>> what the FSF says, or anyone else.
> 
> I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing
> with these issues than we do.
I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's
right to do. We are in a unique situation.

> 
>> I guess there are many contradictions
>> in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with
>> them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e.
>> those closest to the project concerned.
> 
> Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive
> knowlage of international and national copyright law and an
> understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement.
Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as
well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in
that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking
particularly about China and how things are developing there.

> 
>> The Foundation should only
>> become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason,
>> certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy.
> 
> 
> The foundation has historicaly rejected this position.
Be more specific, please. China I suppose comes to mind as an example
where judicious involvement may help carry the project forward.

> 
>> We have a template,
>> that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all,
>> and that is a most empowering ideal.
> 
> NC fails in that respect .As does  DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright
> and at least some of CC's sampling licenses.
Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an
objective..this link may be of use:

http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm

Thanks,
luke