Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[MZMcBride]

Kat Walsh wrote:
>I guess I am in as good a place as any to try to answer this question
>(and I'm speaking only for myself, here).
>
>[...]
>
>So the organization and the licenses are tied together in that someone
>needs to be the license steward, but not necessarily the organization
>in its current form. (The real requirement is that the license steward
>have the trust of the license-using community, so that people will
>still use the CC licenses as stewarded by whoever does it. It is
>possible to have competing forks of the licenses and this is a bad
>idea for the same reason forks of many types of standards with network
>effects are a bad idea.) CC currently has seen better times--in an
>attempt to make its financial situation sustainable many staff were
>recently let go, which is why I am no longer there. But it is not yet
>down to bare bones, and I think there is a much greater likelihood
>that support would continue to exist for that bare bones work (and if
>I'm putting my speculative hat on, paths for such support could
>include getting taken under the wing of a law school, for example).
>
>tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see
>as a major concern.

Thank you very much for taking the time to put together this thoughtful
and candid reply. I really appreciate it, particularly given your unique
expertise and experience in this area.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Pine W]

Kat,

Thanks for the comments. You say that CC "has its struggles but this is not
something I currently see
as a major concern". Would you be able to encourage CC to post more recent
990s and audits so that others can evaluate for ourselves? If CC published
a rehabilitation plan, that would be helpful too.

Thanks,
Pine
On Feb 13, 2015 10:29 PM, "Kat Walsh"  wrote:

> I guess I am in as good a place as any to try to answer this question
> (and I'm speaking only for myself, here).
>
> I think only the barest sliver of the organization needs to exist for
> the licenses to exist--that is, someone willing to carry on the name
> and core mission, even if the org can't itself pay anyone's salary to
> work on it full time. Much of the other work CC does is more
> resource-intensive, especially if it wants to take on the long-term
> issue of policy change, but let's say we're only concerned with the
> immediate scope of your question.
>
> For your particular concern to be addressed, someone needs to be
> willing to undertake needed maintenance of some canonical version of
> the licenses. The vast majority of the time, this means simply keeping
> the servers running so that they remain accessible; on rare and what I
> hope are increasingly infrequent occasions, it means revision of the
> license suite. (I have joked that I will be happy to consult on the
> 5.0 revision from my retirement home.) The main resource this takes is
> time, from people with the necessary knowledge and commitment to do
> it. This rare process benefits from an organization that can support
> paying for full-time work on it, but does not strictly require it.
>
> So the organization and the licenses are tied together in that someone
> needs to be the license steward, but not necessarily the organization
> in its current form. (The real requirement is that the license steward
> have the trust of the license-using community, so that people will
> still use the CC licenses as stewarded by whoever does it. It is
> possible to have competing forks of the licenses and this is a bad
> idea for the same reason forks of many types of standards with network
> effects are a bad idea.) CC currently has seen better times--in an
> attempt to make its financial situation sustainable many staff were
> recently let go, which is why I am no longer there. But it is not yet
> down to bare bones, and I think there is a much greater likelihood
> that support would continue to exist for that bare bones work (and if
> I'm putting my speculative hat on, paths for such support could
> include getting taken under the wing of a law school, for example).
>
> tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see
> as a major concern.
>
> -Kat
> waving hello to the CC staff who lurk on this list...
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:34 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On the subject of Creative Commons...
> >
> > How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately?
> >
> > How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and
> > Creative Commons the licenses?
> >
> > Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses,
> > what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis?
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Pine W]

It appears to me from my surface-level review that there are some long-term
finance and governance troubles at the main CC org. Now seems like a good
time for WMF and other relevant orgs to develop a contingency plan in case
the main CC org continues to have problems or ceases to be functional. I
hope that the CC chapers have contingency plans, and I hope that we on this
list will hear directly from WMF Legal that they are watching this
situation carefully and are making appropriate plans based on what they
learn.

Thanks,

Pine
On Feb 15, 2015 12:40 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  wrote:

> See also https://creativecommons.org/board , https://creativecommons.org/
> tag/ceo
>
> It's important to note that CC has dozens of independent national
> "chapters" (affiliates https://wiki.creativecommons.
> org/Category:Jurisdictions ), many of which are university
> centres/departments; some are rather big and do international work as well,
> like NEXA ( https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Italy ).
>
> It's impossible for them all to collapse at once; in case of fatal
> emergency, it would probably be comparatively easy to transition the
> barebone CC infrastructure (main trademarks and website) from one org to
> another.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

See also https://creativecommons.org/board , 
https://creativecommons.org/tag/ceo


It's important to note that CC has dozens of independent national 
"chapters" (affiliates 
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Category:Jurisdictions ), many of which 
are university centres/departments; some are rather big and do 
international work as well, like NEXA ( 
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Italy ).


It's impossible for them all to collapse at once; in case of fatal 
emergency, it would probably be comparatively easy to transition the 
barebone CC infrastructure (main trademarks and website) from one org to 
another.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Asaf Bartov]

Probably.  But it's a conversation that would need to take place with CC,
off this list, first.

   A.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Kat Walsh  wrote:
>
> > tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see
> > as a major concern.
> >
>
> Is there something we can do as
> * Wikimedia movement?
> * Wikimedia Foundation?
>
> Aubrey
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Andrea Zanni]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Kat Walsh  wrote:

> tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see
> as a major concern.
>

Is there something we can do as
* Wikimedia movement?
* Wikimedia Foundation?

Aubrey
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[James Alexander]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:05 PM, James Alexander 
wrote:

> Yeah, it seems like they have the deed in a bunch of languages now but the
> actual full license is officially only in En,no and fi (
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#languages )
>
> James Alexander
> Legal and Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>

errr... for the record I'm not sure why this sent now... it was written
before Kat had said this exact same thing...

James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Kat Walsh]

I guess I am in as good a place as any to try to answer this question
(and I'm speaking only for myself, here).

I think only the barest sliver of the organization needs to exist for
the licenses to exist--that is, someone willing to carry on the name
and core mission, even if the org can't itself pay anyone's salary to
work on it full time. Much of the other work CC does is more
resource-intensive, especially if it wants to take on the long-term
issue of policy change, but let's say we're only concerned with the
immediate scope of your question.

For your particular concern to be addressed, someone needs to be
willing to undertake needed maintenance of some canonical version of
the licenses. The vast majority of the time, this means simply keeping
the servers running so that they remain accessible; on rare and what I
hope are increasingly infrequent occasions, it means revision of the
license suite. (I have joked that I will be happy to consult on the
5.0 revision from my retirement home.) The main resource this takes is
time, from people with the necessary knowledge and commitment to do
it. This rare process benefits from an organization that can support
paying for full-time work on it, but does not strictly require it.

So the organization and the licenses are tied together in that someone
needs to be the license steward, but not necessarily the organization
in its current form. (The real requirement is that the license steward
have the trust of the license-using community, so that people will
still use the CC licenses as stewarded by whoever does it. It is
possible to have competing forks of the licenses and this is a bad
idea for the same reason forks of many types of standards with network
effects are a bad idea.) CC currently has seen better times--in an
attempt to make its financial situation sustainable many staff were
recently let go, which is why I am no longer there. But it is not yet
down to bare bones, and I think there is a much greater likelihood
that support would continue to exist for that bare bones work (and if
I'm putting my speculative hat on, paths for such support could
include getting taken under the wing of a law school, for example).

tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see
as a major concern.

-Kat
waving hello to the CC staff who lurk on this list...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:34 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On the subject of Creative Commons...
>
> How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately?
>
> How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and
> Creative Commons the licenses?
>
> Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses,
> what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[James Alexander]

Yeah, it seems like they have the deed in a bunch of languages now but the
actual full license is officially only in En,no and fi (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#languages )

James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:

> According to the footer at:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 is currently available in 34 languages/language variants:
> Castellano 
> Castellano (España) <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.es_ES> Català <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ca> Dansk <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.da> Deutsch <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de> English <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en> Esperanto <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.eo> français <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fr>Galego <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.gl> hrvatski <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.hr> Indonesia <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.id> Italiano <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.it> Latviski <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.lv> Lietuvių <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.lt> Magyar <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.hu> Melayu <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ms> Nederlands <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.nl> Norsk <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.no> polski <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pl> Português <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pt> Português (BR) <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pt_BR> Suomeksi <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fi> svenska <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.sv> Türkçe <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.tr> íslenska <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.is>česky <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.cs> Ελληνικά <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.el> русский <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ru> українська <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.uk> العربية <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ar> پارسی <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fa> 日本語 <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ja> 華語 (台灣) <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.zh_TW> 한국어 <
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ko> .
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:26, Luis Villa  wrote:
> >
> > CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?)
> so
> > it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
> > traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
> > Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)
> >
> > [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
> > *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
> > be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more
> languages
> > and a movement-wide discussion.]
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W  wiki.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing
> increasing
> >> amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would
> like us
> >> to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
> >> with new content where possible.
> >>
> >> I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
> >> deconflict licenses.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pine
> >> On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Rupert-
> >>>
> >>> I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0
> at
> >>> roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
> >>> different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
> >>> Foundation
> >>> content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
> >>> across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this
> jump on
> >>> the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for
> example
> >>> <
> >>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries&diff=prev&oldid=622093759
> 
> >>> .)
> >>>
> >>> WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
> >>> issued
> >>> a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
> >>> understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
> >>> weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Pine W]

Good questions. Their Board of Directors page contains long outdated
information, the last Form 990 posted on their website is from tax year
2012 (!) suggests at first glance that they had some big financial problems
that year, and the most recent audit that they posted is also for tax year
2012.

Pine
On Feb 13, 2015 9:35 PM, "MZMcBride"  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> On the subject of Creative Commons...
>
> How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately?
>
> How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and
> Creative Commons the licenses?
>
> Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses,
> what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[MZMcBride]

Hi.

On the subject of Creative Commons...

How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately?

How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and
Creative Commons the licenses?

Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses,
what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Kat Walsh]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:
> According to the footer at:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 is currently available in 34 languages/language variants: [...]

This is just the deeds, not the license text itself.

-Kat


> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>> On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:26, Luis Villa  wrote:
>>
>> CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
>> it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
>> traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
>> Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)
>>
>> [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
>> *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
>> be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
>> and a movement-wide discussion.]
>>
>> Luis
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W > > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
>>> amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
>>> to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
>>> with new content where possible.
>>>
>>> I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
>>> deconflict licenses.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pine
>>> On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:
>>>
 Hi, Rupert-

 I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
 roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
 different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
 Foundation
 content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
 across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
 the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
 <
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries&diff=prev&oldid=622093759
>
 .)

 WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
 issued
 a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
 understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
 weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
 [2].

 Realistically,
 given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
 discussion will happen early in 2015.

 Hope that helps-
 Luis

 [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
 want it to get worse. :)
 [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
 not be up-to-date/accurate.

 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER 
 wrote:

> Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
 newest
> commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
>
> Rupert
> On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, "Yana Welinder" 
 wrote:
>
> Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
>
>> Practical question:
>> The template:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
>> contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
>>  }}
>> instead)
>>
>> Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
>> (including all translations)
>>
>> Romaine
>>
>> 2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen :
>>
>>> Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>> Ting
>>>
>>> Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
>>>
>>> Hi folks,

 I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
 on
 Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:

> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/

 I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
 by
 Wikimedia}}
 <
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
>> [1]
 templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
  [2]
>> and
 {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} [3]
 templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
 [4] and the
 Community
 <
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
>>> [5]
 logos, which were originally releas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Kat Walsh]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Luis Villa  wrote:
> CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
> it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
> traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
> Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)

There are only two official translations of the 4.0 suite currently
(Norwegian and Finnish), with another ready to publish fairly soon,
maybe 10 or so others in progress. (I note that I'm not there anymore,
though, and can't speak to how things will go forward.)

-Kat

> [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
> *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
> be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
> and a movement-wide discussion.]
>
> Luis
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
>> amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
>> to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
>> with new content where possible.
>>
>> I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
>> deconflict licenses.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pine
>> On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Rupert-
>>>
>>> I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
>>> roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
>>> different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
>>> Foundation
>>> content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
>>> across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
>>> the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
>>> <
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries&diff=prev&oldid=622093759
>>> >
>>> .)
>>>
>>> WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
>>> issued
>>> a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
>>> understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
>>> weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
>>> [2].
>>>
>>> Realistically,
>>> given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
>>> discussion will happen early in 2015.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps-
>>> Luis
>>>
>>> [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
>>> want it to get worse. :)
>>> [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
>>> not be up-to-date/accurate.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER >> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
>>> newest
>>> > commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
>>> >
>>> > Rupert
>>> > On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, "Yana Welinder" 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Practical question:
>>> > > The template:
>>> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
>>> > > contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
>>> > > >> >}}
>>> > > instead)
>>> > >
>>> > > Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
>>> > > (including all translations)
>>> > >
>>> > > Romaine
>>> > >
>>> > > 2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen :
>>> > >
>>> > > > Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Greetings
>>> > > > Ting
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  Hi folks,
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
>>> on
>>> > > >> Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
>>> > > >>
>>> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
>>> by
>>> > > >> Wikimedia}}
>>> > > >> <
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
>>> > >[1]
>>> > > >> templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
>>> > > >> >> >[2]
>>> > > and
>>> > > >> {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} >> > > >> org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0>[3]
>>> > > >> templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
>>> > > >> [4] and the
>>> > > >> Community
>>> > > >> <
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
>>> > > >[5]
>>> > > >> logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> There are al

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Michael Peel]

According to the footer at:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
CC-BY-SA 4.0 is currently available in 34 languages/language variants: 
Castellano  Castellano 
(España)  Català 
 Dansk 
 Deutsch 
 English 
 Esperanto 
 français 
Galego 
 hrvatski 
 Indonesia 
 Italiano 
 Latviski 
 Lietuvių 
 Magyar 
 Melayu 
 Nederlands 
 Norsk 
 polski 
 Português 
 Português (BR) 
 Suomeksi 
 svenska 
 Türkçe 
 íslenska 
česky 
 Ελληνικά 
 русский 
 українська 
 العربية 
 پارسی 
 日本語 
 華語 (台灣) 
 한국어 
 .

Thanks,
Mike

> On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:26, Luis Villa  wrote:
> 
> CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
> it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
> traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
> Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)
> 
> [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
> *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
> be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
> and a movement-wide discussion.]
> 
> Luis
> 
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W  > wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
>> amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
>> to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
>> with new content where possible.
>> 
>> I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
>> deconflict licenses.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Pine
>> On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Rupert-
>>> 
>>> I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
>>> roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
>>> different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
>>> Foundation
>>> content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
>>> across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
>>> the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
>>> <
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries&diff=prev&oldid=622093759
 
>>> .)
>>> 
>>> WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
>>> issued
>>> a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
>>> understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
>>> weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
>>> [2].
>>> 
>>> Realistically,
>>> given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
>>> discussion will happen early in 2015.
>>> 
>>> Hope that helps-
>>> Luis
>>> 
>>> [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
>>> want it to get worse. :)
>>> [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
>>> not be up-to-date/accurate.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, ru

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Luis Villa]

CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)

[To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
*acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
and a movement-wide discussion.]

Luis

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
> amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
> to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
> with new content where possible.
>
> I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
> deconflict licenses.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
> On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:
>
>> Hi, Rupert-
>>
>> I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
>> roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
>> different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
>> Foundation
>> content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
>> across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
>> the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
>> <
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries&diff=prev&oldid=622093759
>> >
>> .)
>>
>> WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
>> issued
>> a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
>> understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
>> weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
>> [2].
>>
>> Realistically,
>> given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
>> discussion will happen early in 2015.
>>
>> Hope that helps-
>> Luis
>>
>> [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
>> want it to get worse. :)
>> [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
>> not be up-to-date/accurate.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
>> newest
>> > commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
>> >
>> > Rupert
>> > On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, "Yana Welinder" 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Practical question:
>> > > The template:
>> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
>> > > contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
>> > > > >}}
>> > > instead)
>> > >
>> > > Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
>> > > (including all translations)
>> > >
>> > > Romaine
>> > >
>> > > 2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen :
>> > >
>> > > > Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
>> > > >
>> > > > Greetings
>> > > > Ting
>> > > >
>> > > > Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
>> > > >
>> > > >  Hi folks,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
>> on
>> > > >> Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
>> > > >>
>> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
>> by
>> > > >> Wikimedia}}
>> > > >> <
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
>> > >[1]
>> > > >> templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
>> > > >> > >[2]
>> > > and
>> > > >> {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} > > > >> org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0>[3]
>> > > >> templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
>> > > >> [4] and the
>> > > >> Community
>> > > >> <
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
>> > > >[5]
>> > > >> logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
>> > > >> [6], that
>> may
>> > > need
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Yana
>> > > >>
>> > > >> [1]
>> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
>> > > >>
>> > > >> [2]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
>> > > >>
>> > > >> [3

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Pine W, 10/02/2015 10:13:

in order to maintain continuity
with new content


What?

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Pine W]

Hi,

Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
with new content where possible.

I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
deconflict licenses.

Thanks,
Pine
On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:

> Hi, Rupert-
>
> I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
> roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
> different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So Foundation
> content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
> across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
> the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries&diff=prev&oldid=622093759
> >
> .)
>
> WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has issued
> a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
> understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
> weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
> [2].
> Realistically,
> given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
> discussion will happen early in 2015.
>
> Hope that helps-
> Luis
>
> [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
> want it to get worse. :)
> [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
> not be up-to-date/accurate.
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
> newest
> > commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
> >
> > Rupert
> > On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, "Yana Welinder" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Practical question:
> > > The template:
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
> > > contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
> > > }}
> > > instead)
> > >
> > > Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
> > > (including all translations)
> > >
> > > Romaine
> > >
> > > 2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen :
> > >
> > > > Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
> > > >
> > > > Greetings
> > > > Ting
> > > >
> > > > Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
> > > >
> > > >  Hi folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
> on
> > > >> Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
> > > >>
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
> > > >>
> > > >> I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
> by
> > > >> Wikimedia}}
> > > >>  > >[1]
> > > >> templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
> > > >>  >[2]
> > > and
> > > >> {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}  > > >> org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0>[3]
> > > >> templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
> > > >> [4] and the
> > > >> Community
> > > >> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
> > > >[5]
> > > >> logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
> > > >>
> > > >> There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
> > > >> [6], that may
> > > need
> > > >> to
> > > >> be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> Yana
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
> > > >>
> > > >> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
> > > >>
> > > >> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
> > > >>
> > > >> [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg
> > > >>
> > > >> [5]
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
> > > >>
> > > >> [6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[Luis Villa]

Hi, Rupert-

I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So Foundation
content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example

.)

WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has issued
a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
[2].
Realistically,
given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
discussion will happen early in 2015.

Hope that helps-
Luis

[1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
want it to get worse. :)
[2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
not be up-to-date/accurate.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the newest
> commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
>
> Rupert
> On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, "Yana Welinder"  wrote:
>
> Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
>
> > Practical question:
> > The template:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
> > contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
> > }}
> > instead)
> >
> > Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
> > (including all translations)
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> > 2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen :
> >
> > > Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
> > >
> > > Greetings
> > > Ting
> > >
> > > Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
> > >
> > >  Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on
> > >> Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
> > >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
> > >>
> > >> I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright by
> > >> Wikimedia}}
> > >>  >[1]
> > >> templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
> > >> [2]
> > and
> > >> {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}  > >> org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0>[3]
> > >> templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
> > >> [4] and the
> > >> Community
> > >>  > >[5]
> > >> logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
> > >>
> > >> There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
> > >> [6], that may
> > need
> > >> to
> > >> be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Yana
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
> > >>
> > >> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
> > >>
> > >> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
> > >>
> > >> [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg
> > >>
> > >> [5]
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
> > >>
> > >> [6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Yana Welinder
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6867
> @yanatweets 
>
> NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> reasons I cannot gi

[Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

[rupert THURNER]

Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the newest
commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?

Rupert
On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, "Yana Welinder"  wrote:

Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki 
wrote:

> Practical question:
> The template:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
> contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
> }}
> instead)
>
> Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
> (including all translations)
>
> Romaine
>
> 2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen :
>
> > Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
> >
> > Greetings
> > Ting
> >
> > Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
> >
> >  Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on
> >> Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
> >> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
> >>
> >> I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright by
> >> Wikimedia}}
> >> [1]
> >> templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
> >> [2]
> and
> >> {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}  >> org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0>[3]
> >> templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
> >> [4] and the
> >> Community
> >>  >[5]
> >> logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
> >>
> >> There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
> >> [6], that may
> need
> >> to
> >> be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Yana
> >>
> >> [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
> >>
> >> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
> >>
> >> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
> >>
> >> [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg
> >>
> >> [5]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
> >>
> >> [6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



--
Yana Welinder
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
@yanatweets 

NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,