Another question: Given the WMF admission in the FAQ that the GFDL has * never* been followed in re-use of Wikipedia content due to the insane difficulty of doing so, and given its rampant "illegal" re-use on the web, and the WMF's ignoring this illegal re-use for years on end, what chance is there that a court of law would find that the GFDL actually applies to this content were someone to sue a re-user?
Isn't it true that the efforts to force re-users to appropriately atrribute the content have not actually asked them to follow the letter of the GFDL? Is a license that is never enforced truly a license, in the legal sense? On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm curious (and not arguing it is the case) why due diligence here does > not involve e-mailing every person who has ever made an edit and has their > e-mail address in their profile. > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mike & I have made some updates to the Q&A today: >> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers >> >> Please let me know or edit the page if you feel further clarifications >> and answers are needed. Otherwise I'll prepare a translation request, >> probably on Friday. >> >> Meanwhile, I'm also working on the actual re-licensing proposal, so >> that we can discuss it with the Board this weekend. One question I'm >> struggling with, and would appreciate input on, is what voting method >> and process should be used to make the decision. I anticipate that it >> will be a simple yes/no vote, possibly with an explicit abstain >> option. I can see two approaches to implement the actual vote: >> >> 1) Use the BoardVote software. It's secure, well-tested and >> well-understood. It's more burdensome to set up, the process for >> counting votes is quite rigorous (accurate but burdensome), and it may >> be overkill for this purpose. Votes are private. >> 2) Use a vote on Meta, like we did for e.g. the Wikinews and >> Wikiversity project launch votes. It's easy, but suffers from edit >> conflicts, and accurate vote counting is hard. Votes are public. >> >> In the second case, the vote result would be less defensible - but >> since it's not a legal necessity to run a vote at all, that might be >> OK. It would be also easier to add comments, have detailed discussions >> on the talk page, etc. Importantly, since this is a complex problem, >> misunderstandings may be common, and in a public vote, they could be >> more easily corrected. In the first case, we could add a prominent >> link to the full proposal, the Q&A and all discussions to the voting >> interface, but it would still be a less wiki-like way of doing things. >> >> I'd appreciate thoughts & comments. >> >> -- >> Erik Möller >> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation >> >> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > -- > You have successfully failed! > -- You have successfully failed! _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
