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

Birgitte SB birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 24 08:10:25 UTC 2011


The license can only call upon the law. Any attempts to plaster over the 
underlying deficits in the law are just that:plaster. We often seem to pretend 
the licenses are all smooth and perfect, but just because they can't be 
substantially smoothed and perfected any further doesn't mean that people who 
can feel slight cracks in them are hallucinating.

Perfectly rational licensing which works universally well is not an really 
option. There just isn't a rational schema of copyright law for such a license 
to call upon.  But I think the CC licenses work well enough; as well as we can 
realistically hope for. 


Birgitte SB



----- Original Message ----
> From: Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 7:10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with 
>the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
> 
> If that is the case (As I understood this has never yet been tested in
> court,  but I would appreciate any links to any jurisprudence, although we
> probably  should start a new thread) then the point I tried to make still
> stands: a  license should work in every medium. Whether the uploader makes
> restrictions  to the applicability of the license does not matter, we should
> just avoid  that merely because of the license the work cannot be used in a
> certain  medium. I hoped to direct the discussion a bit into a helpful
> direction, but  I guess my email is only leading to different side tracks.
> 
> Best  regards,
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> 2011/2/23 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> 
> >  Hoi,
> > If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular  license,
> > it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for  instance print or
> > do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot  claim the same right on
> > the same object in a higher  resolution.
> >
> > A license is given for what is provided in the way  it is provided. What you
> > can or cannot do with is depends on the  license.
> > Thanks,
> >         GerardM
> >
> > On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>  wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >  >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >  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
> 


      




More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list