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

[Gerard Meijssen]

luke brandt schreef:
> 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
Hoi,
If you want the board to pronounce its opinion, I would be utterly and 
utterly surprised when the official position is anything but a 
resounding NO to non commercial stuff. In diplomacy they say that you 
should not ask a question if you cannot life with the answer. I can, but 
can you ?
Thanks,
     Gerard