Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interpretation of CC NC from SUISA

2019-05-20 Thread Benjamin Ikuta
Do you think it might be a common misconception, perhaps? On May 20, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil and > Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe > we as a Movement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Possible abuse of Wikipedia ToS by SurveyMonkey

2019-05-20 Thread Elena Lappen
Hi MarioGom, Thanks for outlining these concerns. The Legal Team is currently looking into the issue and has reached out to SurveyMonkey for additional information. I will provide an update here when the matter is resolved. Best, Elena -- Elena Lappen (she/her) Community Relations Specialist

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interpretation of CC NC from SUISA

2019-05-20 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil and Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe we as a Movement should have some sort of plan or strategy to fight that - and never indulge in accepting NC as a valid license for the Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interpretation of CC NC from SUISA

2019-05-20 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
Where would it fit in Strategy 2030? Advocacy? Paulo James Heilman escreveu no dia segunda, 20/05/2019 à(s) 05:41: > We all agree NC licenses are poor. The WMF position was a reflection of the > community's position at the time and this likely remains the community's > position today. > > If

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interpretation of CC NC from SUISA

2019-05-20 Thread Yury Bulka
> From: Lane Rasberry > > In 2009 Creative Commons published "Defining Noncommercial", a 250-page > report presenting survey data on what people consider to be > "noncommercial". There is a copy of the report at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_license Thanks a lot,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interpretation of CC NC from SUISA

2019-05-20 Thread Yury Bulka
> From: Mister Thrapostibongles > > I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right venue > for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, > especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit > commercial reuse. In my opition