[Wikipedia-l] Re: foundation of a German registered association

[Jimmy Wales]

Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
> Jimmy, you will never be able to fully avoid this - all Wikipedia
> texts are GNU FDL.

But GNU FDL is a good thing, and people taking the texts to do
whatever they want is a good thing.  That's not what I'm talking
about.  I'm talking about a scenario in which there's a break within
the organization, and that is something we can and should try to
prevent with solid international co-operation and planning.

> Worst case scenario: There might be quarrels in the future between
> the contributors from different countries, the majority of
> contributors of one country decides to set up it's own server. If
> they want to do so, this just will happen, and the foundation will
> not be asked. The only thing you are and should be able to avoid in
> such a situation is that such a spit-off-Wikipedia/media uses the
> name Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

But it is important for us to all work together _today_ to ensure that
such splits don't happen in the future.  Quarrels between contributors
from different countries don't need to lead to that kind of
organizational split, if we put into place procedures that push us all
to work together as part of an international team.

I see the likelihood of a real break being much greater if we do not
retain organizational simplicity and unity.

> Again, we are not wanting, planning, or considering such a
> split. That is exactly WHY we want to use the name Wikimedia. If we
> don't use it, THEN the first step towards such a split would be
> done, because then you have two organizations with different names
> doing the same thing (supporting projects like Wikipedia) - that's
> already a symbolic split, even if one is sending money to the other.

I agree completely that it is much more desirable for there to be
legal arrangements made so that we can use the Wikimedia name
universally for the single international project.  I do not support
the idea of creating a separate organization of any kind, with or
without the name Wikimedia.  If a separate legal entity is useful, and
surely it is, then yes I support that fully.

> Actually, this is far more dangerous for the future than what we are
> trying to bring into life right now: An organization named Wikimedia
> also, having "supporting free content in general and the US
> Wikimedia Foundation in particular" as goal in it's bylaws, being
> run by Wikipedians, but legally independent from the foundation for
> a number of good reasons.

I oppose the legal independence and see no reason for it.  But I need
to talk to a German lawyer so that we can iron these issues out more
clearly.

> To further reduce the possibility of that situation, probably a
> paper can be signed by the country organizations stating that they
> are aware that they might use the Wikimedia name only as long as
> "approved" by the Wikimedia foundation. Then, in the worst case of a
> split-off, you have good changes to make the split-off organization
> change it's name. As stated above, there is no way to hinder such a
> split-off in general.

I think that's an excellent suggestion and likely the best way to
proceed.

> I doubt there is any legal way to have a foundation subsidiary here
> in Germany that is under german law (important for tax exemption and
> so on), open for german members but still completely controlled by
> the foundation. The highest board of every german e.V (and also of a
> german foundation) are democratic institutions, so everything is
> controlled by the members. If you want to open the organization for
> other members than the foundation (and you need at least 7 members
> for an e.V), you *must* give up control. I think that will hold true
> for every EU country, not just for Germany.

I have no opinion nor preference as to the exact details.  If the
organization has to be in a certain way, then it has to be in a
certain way.  But even in that case, it is crucial that legal controls
be in place to ensure that such an organization does not someday
become separated from the international movement.

> We want to have an open community which acts bottom-up and not
> top-down. If that's not what you want, please say it, because then
> we know we must go ahead, choose another name and take the first
> step towards that split we all don't want.

I am 100% in favor of an open community w hich acts bottom-up and not
top-down.  But that community is, and must remain, truely
international in character.  The legal choices that we make can
destroy that if we aren't careful.

What I ask you to do is to *not* go ahead, not so quickly, as there is
no particular reason to hurry.  We can spend several months exploring
options and talking to a lawyer.  Possibly my visit to Germany this
summer would be a good target date for the launching of such a
foundation, and I could be there to give my enthusiastic support.

But going out, this week, or this month, to form an organization in
haste, without us all fully discussing and working out the details so
as to achieve our mutual goals, seems unwise to me.

Let's target early June (when I will be in Berlin and Munich) for the
date of a formal launch, and spend time between now and then carefully
working on a plan.

--Jimbo