Robert Rohde wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are
introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can
be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities
that were
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that
responsibility by delegating it to the community. Accept the
responsibility
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea
how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to -
layperson
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann
h.schlottm...@gmx.netwrote:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea
how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
* Abandon the planned vote, don't ask the community. The issue is too
complicated to hand out proper information to the laypersons in the
community. Consequently we should not be bothered. Doing otherwise would
in the best outcome be dishonest, because we have to
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the
projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think
making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be
done about it
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann
h.schlottm...@gmx.netwrote:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann
h.schlottm...@gmx.netwrote:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as
2009/2/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the
projects would be dual licensed and
2009/2/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
The reasons are fairly obvious - the FSF
wants people to still be using their license and the WMF felt the need
to compromise, so agreed to it.
If the FSF wants people to still
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the
proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the
water.
True.
This should be quite an important issue for the Foundation. The time
frame is narrow, running out and it looks like the Foundation
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea
how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to -
layperson or professional -
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea
how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to -
layperson or professional -
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann
h.schlottm...@gmx.netwrote:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea
how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to -
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that
responsibility by delegating it to the community. Accept the
responsibility and act
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that
responsibility by delegating it to
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net
wrote:
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that
I totally agree that we should know in advance on how attribution
should take place when people are going to reuse our content. A good
example on how to handle this might be how the Blender Foundation did
that with its 'Elephant's Dream' and 'Big Buck Bunny' projects (even
though the license there
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we
believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by
exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective
wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Rohde wrote:
If someone comes to us and says: I want to print a copy of [[France]]
in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?,
then we really ought to be able to answer that
I have never understood why any substantial contributor to Wikipedia
here would feel that attributing the specific text the contributed to
an article to them individually if an article is reprinted is to
their benefit--given that the text will have been almost entirely
replaced, modified, and
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
The GFDL has problems which need to be fixed. If the relicensing under
CC-BY-SA occurs, that's much less likely to happen.
I spent 3 years trying to get the GFDL fixed. Would you like me to
forward you all of the We'll get back
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
get some more information that would help work out details for
attribution standards. Not everything is
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
get some more information that would help work out details for
attribution
Hoi,
The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we
choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It is
in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on
the subject make a difference.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/18 Thomas
Hoi,
Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the
license says anyway.. and this is the implication, then there is no point in
throwing the child away with the bathing water as you propose. So imho we
should compare the two licenses and in essence we already agree that
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the
license says anyway
It is? Then I won't be voting for it...
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to
consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's
post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the
switch, and when they do we will be bound by what the CC-BY-SA says
attribution is. We
2009/2/18 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to
consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's
post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the
switch, and when they do we will be bound
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in
the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
There's the
It's been said quite clearly that the foundation doesn't have to
consult the community, although not in this thread.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/18 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari kald...@gmail.com:
As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the
proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the
water. Despite requests for an update on-wiki, no updates have come
from the Foundation since January. Looking at the
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
get some more information that would help work out details for
attribution
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive
rights to content they add to the site (where they are
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
interpret the license.
For the record, I disagree that the way we are going to do
this is different from what the license says anyway at least
as the starting point. I think it should be very carefully
thought about if there were a conscious decision to
violate the license explicitly. That said there is of course
a gray
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are
introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can
be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities
that were there before, and still
37 matches
Mail list logo
