I mean Wikipedia (or websites like Wikipedia) specific. Italian text will have to do - Google translate does miracles :) I think what would be really great is a set of statements/suggestions, so not just by one expert. For one, the Rodotà statement was not exactly what I was looking for at some point, so perhaps another statement by someone else clarifies better.
Thanks a lot, Lodewijk No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 15:20, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]>escreveu: > Lodewijk, 06/10/2011 14:24: > > No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) > > escreveu: > > > >> This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree > >> that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other > >> websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of > >> the proposed law for a long time before. > >> > > > > it's not that I dont trust you - but several people have asked me for > such > > opinions. Is there somewhere an overview of legal experts interpreting > > this? > > Yes, there are some, but do you mean for websites in general or for > Wikipedia specifically? Are Italian texts enough? > I've linked only a statement by Rodotà before because I can't imagine a > more authoritative one now (I'm open to suggestions), but WMI is now > asking more thorough analysis to legal experts. > > Nemo > > _______________________________________________ > 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
