Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[email protected]>: > >> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some >> things were on that list, that would not make them >> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of >> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if >> they were infact contrary to our mission. >> > > Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable > to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that > both need to be satisfied. > >
Actually, what the CC lawyers would say, would *not* constitute what is legal. it would just be some vague interpretation of their intents and understandings; and I doubt they would even confidentially let anyone know *all* their views of possible legal ramifications. It is not true that some concrete and definable "what is legal" should be satisfied. In fact it would be contrary to many of our core mission issues to satisfy many "what is legal" criteria, in quite a few jurisdictions. And not just in China, but quite palpably also in the UK. (Crown Copyright for instance). What we do want to enable though, is interoperability within reasonable limits of concordance with our mission, and jurisdictional issues of importing, exporting content and keeping it generally in play within a copyleft framework. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
