On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Michael Peel wrote:
> I remember reading Erik’s blog post a decade or so ago, which convinced me
> that -NC was useless due to its ambiguity - where exactly is the line drawn
> between what is commercial and what is not? I can’t find it now
We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons
listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy videos)
less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use. Fair use
has the same issues, in that fair use is decided on a cases by case basis.
And
This was brought up during the 4.0 drafting process, but it was
ultimately rejected:
https://creativecommons.org/2012/08/29/ongoing-discussions-noncommercial-and-noderivatives/
We also proposed renaming NC to "Commercial Rights Reserved" to make
it clearer what NC does, but that too had
Hi James :)
(This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit
on this list.)
> We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons
> listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy videos)
> less accessible to our readers because we
Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful. I
would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given
his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be
available on meta. If that is not the case, that is more likely due to
Yes one of the stronger reasons to reject all use of the NC license is that
it increases incentives for other organizations to actually adopt open
licenses. I simply wish that such a position would convince more
organizations. WHO has repeatedly told me that we, as a non-profit, are
already free
I always supported a more effective centralized policy for NC. I don't think
that will discourage organizations from adopting more free license per se, the
same way that adopting certain NC material on local Wikis did not so far. it's
not an absolute consequence, it's how you do it.
At least,
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad
wrote:
> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> I’m unable to answer this
*Cross-posting to wikitech-l as it's a topic related to development.*
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 23:01, Maarten Dammers wrote:
> Of interest to the wider community. I really hope this is not part of a
> larger pattern of the WMF ignoring community.
>
> Maarten
I've had a great experience in the
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia?
I don't understand that question.
The cited answer was received from .
If not, Which ANI?
>
The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]].
Cheers,
Aron
On Sat, 11 Jul
Context is necessary to understand this.
If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Aron Manning
Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re:
Quite possible I am mistaken, but I thought OTRS was separate from WP, which
would make en:wp:ANI irrelevant.
Chreers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Aron Manning
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:55
To: Wikimedia Mailing
Hi folks,
Pete Forsyth wrote a new essay on the ambiguities of the NonCommercial
("non-commercial use only") provision in Creative Commons licenses,
which I wanted to share in case it's helpful for folks making the case
against using NC to cultural institutions or others (or in the
occasionally
I remember reading Erik’s blog post a decade or so ago, which convinced me that
-NC was useless due to its ambiguity - where exactly is the line drawn between
what is commercial and what is not? I can’t find it now, but perhaps
14 matches
Mail list logo
