[Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

[Lodewijk]

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
>