[Foundation-l] A letter to Wikipedia collides with the non-free content policies

[Birgitte SB]

> Remember the dot wrote:
> > I'm hoping for clarification by the foundation on
> whether or not
> > by-permission-only works like this may be used.
> This could soften Jimbo
> > Wales' previous statement that every image used by
> permission only must be
> > deleted immediately (
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html),
> which
> > would be a big deal. It would place the decision
> squarely back in the hands
> > of the English Wikipedia.
> >
> > It's not that I'm whining that the foundation come
> to the rescue and tell us
> > what to do. It's that the foundation has given us
> an ambiguous statement on
> > when it is and is not OK to use non-free content.
> That statement could all
> > too easily be unilaterally interpreted to forbid
> any relaxation of the
> > English Wikipedia's non-free content policy. This
> has actually happened in
> > the past:
> >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANon-free_content&diff=130081453&oldid=130064409
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&diff=next&oldid=130081453
> >
> > and I would really like for it to not happen in
> the future.
> Let's hope that the foundation keeps giving
> ambiguous responses!  From a 
> strictly legal point Mike would seem right in saying
> that the letter in 
> question can't be used without the proper
> authorization from the letter 
> writer.  When asked questions about the law a lawyer
> must respond on the 
> basis of how he sees the law.  He can also say that
> within the strict 
> terms of the licence a particular action is not
> free.  A lawyer advises 
> about the risk; the client ultimately decides how
> much risk is 
> acceptable.  There are many areas that are clearly
> red or green, but 
> there is also a vast yellow middle   It's very
> common to find ambiguous 
> legal wordings, and as a group we have run into a
> lot of this in 
> copyright law.  The statutory provisions seem to say
> one thing, but 
> there is absolutely no case law supporting either
> possible 
> interpretation.  Perhaps one reason is that the
> economic value of the 
> material involved is trivial. 
> 
> Jimbo does tend to be categorical in his statements
> at times, and to the 
> best of my knowledge he is still on the Board of the
> Foundation.  Given 
> the level of cluelessness that is often exercised
> it's easy to see why 
> he tends to the categorical.  I believe there should
> be common-sense 
> exceptions to nearly every rule. The apology letter
> in question could be 
> an exception, given that even for us there is no
> reason to put it in the 
> main namespace.  If the letter writer's apology is
> directed to the 
> entire Wikipedia community it should be available to
> the entire 
> Wikipedia community, but there is no apparent reason
> for it to be used 
> by anyone else.
> 
> An ambiguous statement could be "too easily" used in
> the way that you 
> say, but it can just as easily be used to support
> the opposite view.  A 
> statement made about a particular example only
> applies to that example, 
> and one should be careful about making unwarranted
> generalizations.
> 
> Ec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs