On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, geni wrote:
On 2 March 2014 08:55, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission,
producing
free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to be
engaged
in, "making the *.wikipedia.org sites look nice in the short term, even
if
nobody external can reuse the content".
There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia projects.
There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly ultra-conservative approach to the definition of "Free", whereas most other projects are working to a definition of "Free for all practical purposes". It is the latter interpretation that the board, in consultation with the legal team, are recommending as the way forward but is being resisted strongly by many on Commons.
These days I wouldn't dare upload an image that was not either my own work or public doman due to life+100 because I couldn't guarantee that it wont be delted. Even with my own work I'm wary because of recent cases of amateur lawyering over the definition of "permanent" for the purposes of UK freedom of panorama.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery