On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04:26, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not
the person required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the
freedom or the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright dispute
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04:26, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not
the person required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the
On 3 March 2010 10:38, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
By looking on the other sites that seem to be posting it. I don't see
how posting their signing keys helps anyone trying to learn about
the company.
This sounds like a new case of we want to post it because they don't
want it posted
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Techman224 techman...@techman224.com wrote:
It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its Office
actions policy removed and oversighted the
signing keys for Texas Instruments calculators under a DMCA takedown notice
on October 7, 2009.
On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
of reason to exclude this material regardless of the copyright/legal
concerns, and plenty of other people hosting it elsewhere. Doubly
true where the
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
of reason to exclude this material regardless of the copyright/legal
concerns, and
It depends on how the keys were posted and displayed on the wiki page, however
we can't see the revisions
with the keys because of the oversights, to see how they were posted and where,
so we are in the dark there.
On 2010-03-03, at 4:38 AM, Chad wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Peter
Doesn't matter how they were posted. If they were, and there is a valid notice,
the action is to expeditiously remove them, notify the poster and let the
poster decide if they want to counter-notice and contest it.
All the second guessing in the world is irrelevant to a fight between two
Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys, also
the DMCA notice (or any other notice)
is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not given
to the user who posted the content as they can't
remove content after it has been published. Since
On 3 March 2010 13:26, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
of reason to exclude
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 3 March 2010 13:26, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia
No, actually it's not.
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Take_down_and_Put_Back_provisions
and then figure out why this is not WMF's place to get involved other than
availing itself of the safe harbor protections. Hint: check step 6.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
According to the Language proposal policy, Language committee may approve
just a project which intends to be written in one language.
True, the language sub committee is asked to attend to details about
specific languages;
On 3 March 2010 13:35, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume you do realize that this 12.5M is /after/ the fundraiser, hence
including the huge amount of donations that has been raised?
...as, indeed, was last December's glut.
Looking at both mid-year and end-year reports,
Hi,
The question of what is the right reserve amount is a common one. I've
hear of ranges from 0 to 3 months to 3 years. I agree that one year is
a good measure and that could be increased or decreased depending on a
variety of circumstances both internal and external. Many non-profits
Veronique, what would be the maximum we'd want to go with a reserve fund. I
know that with Army Emergency Relief for example, they get dinged by Charity
Navigator for having massive reserves of money. What do you think the maximum
would be for Wikimedia?
But Dan your reply allows any illegitimate claim of copyright infringement to
be acted upon as an office action.
It's possible that we could say that the office cannot know whether a claim is
legitimate or not, but if the office is informed through a reliable source that
a claim is
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The WMF should absolutely duke it out to protect material that ought
to be in Wikipedia in accordance with the educational mission and
community editorial guidelines. It ought not engage in fights outside
of those areas for every instance of possibly suppressed
2010/3/1 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com:
I think it would be great if someone
on the project could put the initial tone aside, turn the other cheek,
and let everyone interested (and I know there are several) know what's
going on.
Hi Austin et al.,
William has already posted extensively on this
19 matches
Mail list logo
