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

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 curren

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

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 help

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

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 h

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

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 rathe

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

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 ma

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

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 mail

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

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 Co

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 shor

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

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

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

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

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

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) Catal

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

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

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

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.w

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

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 som

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

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 lic