Just to make a clarification: If you have copyright on a "thing" (with the lack of a better word) in one medium, you also have it in another. If a text or image is copyrighted in print, it is copyrighted online. That is what I meant with universal in this context, sorry if I was confusing.
Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content truly re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to "publish" it - print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an airplane and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply. Of course I am aware of all kinds of problems in copyright legislation and how it sucks, I know that countries have different laws, one worse than the other. But solving that would probably be slightly over stretching ourselves. Best, Lodewijk 2011/2/23 Birgitte SB <[email protected]> > I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest of > this > thread. > > > However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal. > Copyright > is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal work-a-day > copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make sense > if > they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright world > people > pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid having to > face > how ugly it is under the microscope. > > > Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people with > narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that translate > poorly > into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not internationally > speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums. > > Birgitte SB > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Lodewijk <[email protected]> > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:02:05 AM > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement > with > >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications > > > > I don't get it. > > > > Copyright is universal, so should copyright licenses be. There are > numerous > > exceptions to come up with, and we can discuss on this list into > eternity > > about those where Geni can come up with wonderful examples and Teofilo > will > > come up with reasons why they fall outside his scope. Doesnt the whole > fact > > that we have this discussion proof the point already and remove the > > necessity of such? > > > > The point is that GFDL has impracticalities to some people. Whether you > also > > have these impracticalities does not really matter, as long as some > people > > experience them as such, because it limits re-use. > > > > The question is, should Wikimedia Commons favor one license over the > other, > > or even discourage the use of some subset of free licenses? > > > > I think that offering a default license is great - it is a major > > simplification of the upload process and increases the odds that someone > > will make an upload. Because be honest: most authors don't care, they > want > > their content uploaded to Wikipedia. If that requires them to release > some > > rights they won't commercialize anyway, they are likely willing to do > so. No > > matter the conditions. If they would be required to make a silly dance > > through walkthrough license schemes, they will just get frustrated and > cut > > off the process. > > > > Of course we can have an advanced upload scheme where people like > Teofilo > > can pick all complicated licenses they like or even type their own > personal > > release which then can be judged by the community - but please don't > bother > > the regular uploader with that. > > > > Best, > > > > Lodewijk > > > > 2011/2/21 Teofilo <[email protected]> > > > > > 2011/2/21 geni <[email protected]>: > > > (...) > > > >> I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation. > > > > > > > > Well yes thats rather the problem. There are also slideshows with > > > > actual physical slides. I've got some around somewhere. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > geni > > > > > > People who work with actual physical slides are unlikely to > > > incorporate contents from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is online. If they > > > bother to create a physical slide out of content from Wikipedia, they > > > must have a computer with an internet connection, so it is not > > > difficult for them to upload the equivalent of the slide they created > > > at Wikimedia Commons, or on imageshack if it is not an educational > > > content. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
