Sue Gardner wrote: > I've been meaning to reply in this thread to what Jussi said. (Sorry to not > reply inline; I'm on my Blackberry.) > > First of all, can I ask as a favor that you never again refer to me as "Jussi". Jussi is my grandpa. I am Jussi-Ville, or "J-V" (Jay-Vee) for short. Often also known by my TLA "JVH" in contexts of people like Mike Godwin, who date me from the early ages of the internet. I am not offended, but I do want to make it clear that referring to me as "Jussi" does have significance.
> Jussi said he's only seen comments on the licensing issue from the staff, and > not from the board. That may be true on this list, and it may be true for the > specific piece of the conversation that interests him; I'm not sure. > > But I do want to point out two things. > > 1) At its January meeting, the board developed and unanimously voted to > approve, a statement in favour of migration. I think it was included in my > January report that was published here on foundation-l a few weeks ago. If > I'm wrong and the full statement's not in in that report, let me know and > I'll send it to this list. (Or Domas will, or another board member will.) > > 2) Also at the January board meeting, the board made an explicit request to > staff and board members, to publicly speak their minds on this issue. Some > people probably would do that anyway, but the board wanted to explicitly > request it in this case. Why? Because the license migration issue is pretty > complex, and not everyone understands it well. > Basically, people fall into three camps. 1., Those who are already > knowledgeable, and have developed a position. 2., Those who aren't yet > knowledgeable, but plan to read up in advance of the vote, in order to > develop a position. And 3., those who don't plan to read up, and would rather > trust others (board, staff, other volunteers) to do the research on their > behalf, and to advise them. The board is encouraging knowledgeable staff and > board members to express their opinions, as a service for those latter two > groups. > > That is why you're hearing a lot from Erik and Mike in the license migration > threads. Because they're knowledgeable about the issue, and the board has > asked them to share what they think :-) > > These are valuable words. I genuinely trust that what has been generated has not been only heat, but there has been some illumination shed on the issues as well. Personally as I have said before I am somewhat wanly satisfied with where we stand at the moment, provided there will be no back-sliding later. In an ideal world I would prefer multi-licensing under *all* localized versions of CC-BY-SA 3.0 and a TOS that would pre-emptively require assent to multi-licensing under any future localized versions. That way the issue would squarely land on the re-user, and not on who adds material. That is the editor wouldn't have to choose the jurisdictive limits of their licensing, but the one creating a work outside wikimedia would have to do so. But it isn't clear that we do live in an ideal world. ;-) Yours, no offense taken nor hopefully given, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
