Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-13 Thread Erik Moeller
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 2:51 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
> There should be no 'collaborative and transformative work' done on this
> archive

Bulk uploads often entail collaboration or transformation as the
uploads are organized, and as format issues and other considerations
are worked through. If you want to enable uploads in a wiki context, I
don't think you'll be able to (or want to!) get around that. :) That's
part of the reason why I think the upload stage should be reserved for
the point when licensing issues have in fact been resolved.

> Erik, to your point — yes, this should also include old books that are in
> the process of relicensing, if those books have been uploaded to us by or
> on behalf of a license holder, and we are confirming that and working
> through related steps.

Is your assumption that the set of works that would be so archived is
closer to being usable in Wikimedia projects (i.e. freely licensed)
than any other set of works? If so, I still don't see how this is
true. The decision to apply a license like NC is often a very
intentional one, difficult to reverse, as the many discussions about
this license have shown. In contrast, the decision to just use
conventional copyright is often not a decision at all. In many cases,
a copyrighted work may be "free for the asking".

> It helps our work to have a persistent public place (not randomly deleted
> from time to time!) to discuss determining their license status, getting
> formal and informal license clearance, discussions with the contributors to
> refine their understanding of options, debates among ourselves about
> whether a license grant was sufficient and how to obtain more clarity, 

I agree with that! I think it could be done e.g. in a WikiBase
instance which focuses on tracking URLs of valuable educational
content rather than files. This would have some advantages:

- it is inclusive of material under all licensing terms, in any repository
- it is inclusive of material that is not trivially downloadable or
that is in formats that require conversion or transformation
- it can hold URLs to collections alongside URLs to single files

It could be scoped to track material that is associated with plausible
efforts to liberate it for use in Wikimedia, e.g., organized under
WikiProjects.

And what of archiving? As I said before, a partner like the Internet
Archive would IMO be well-suited to help archive URLs that permit it,
without requiring the manual labor of managing copies in some kind of
pseudo-wiki.

Fundamentally I just don't buy the apparent premise that amassing NC
type content, or content under your "any legal way but not yet free"
formulation, actually helps in the goal of content liberation. Is that
stuff worth archiving? Sure, but Wikimedia is not the IA.

I do appreciate the discussion, and the WikiNotYetFree proposal (even
if I disagree with its premise for the same reasons).  If there's
interest in the idea formulated above, of a wiki that truly is a
clearinghouse and not an archive of nonfree content, I would be happy
to try to help articulate it further.

Warmly,
Erik

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



Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-11 Thread Samuel Klein
+100 to what Alessandro said.

Erik, to your point — yes, this should also include old books that are in
the process of relicensing, if those books have been uploaded to us by or
on behalf of a license holder, and we are confirming that and working
through related steps.

There should be no 'collaborative and transformative work' done on this
archive -- it would be for literal archiving of the materials and
clarification / updating of their metadata, until they can be moved to a
free + collaborative commons.

It helps our work to have a persistent public place (not randomly deleted
from time to time!) to discuss determining their license status, getting
formal and informal license clearance, discussions with the contributors to
refine their understanding of options, debates among ourselves about
whether a license grant was sufficient and how to obtain more clarity, 

S



On Fri., Aug. 7, 2020, 9:35 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  We have an archive mixing different licenses now, one is Commons ranging
> from CC-0 to CC BY SA, and other ones are local Wikis sometimes including
> in their spectrum of situations many non-free files in fair use. this is
> proof that an archive hosting non-free files with other free-licensed
> information has nothing special per se. A new archive might simply be more
> clear and linear than those, since it would be designed specifically to
> handle the matter.
>
> I work in outreach the whole time, you can give me all the money you want
> to improve my productivity, but I would still use it more efficiently if I
> could have a more integrated infrastructure specifically for this issue.
> A.
>
>
> Il venerdì 7 agosto 2020, 08:52:31 CEST, Erik Moeller <
> eloque...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:52 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should mix NC with free-knowledge licenses .
> > I do absolutely think we should maintain an archive, visible to the
> public
> > with at most a simple hoop to jump through, of material that is offered
> to
> > us in any legal way but not yet free.
>
> Such an archive would _unavoidably_ "mix NC with free-knowledge
> licenses" -- because all collaborative and transformative work
> happening in the archive itself would be released under free knowledge
> licenses. Worse, any meaningful transformations of the archived works
> would result in derivative works that remain nonfree, directly
> enlisting volunteers in the creation of nonfree knowledge.
>
> In any event, why create an archive for works under borderline terms,
> while ignoring more restricted works that could be plausibly released
> under a free license tomorrow? Works that are nonfree for simple
> economic reasons (e.g., some old but useful textbook) may often be
> easier to "set free" than those which are nonfree for reasons of
> longstanding policy (e.g, the WHO example). Why amass the latter and
> ignore the former? I don't see how this would strengthen Wikimedia's
> free knowledge commitment, but I can easily see how it could weaken it
> considerably and very quickly, whether or not that's the intent.
>
> To be clear, I think creating free summaries and descriptions of
> nonfree works (from traditional textbooks and scientific papers to
> Khan Academy videos) is very much in line with the Wikimedia mission.
> I don't think it requires hosting the works. To the extent that there
> is concern about losing access to works that are currently available
> via public URLs, the use of Internet Archive enabled citation URLs
> provides a great example for how to avoid such link rot.
>
> I'm sure there are also plenty of tech and non-tech ways Wikimedia
> could support volunteers and chapters that work on outreach to set
> more educational works free, none of which require the creation of a
> nonfree archive.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-11 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
We do not need a "centralised Wiki for NC files". What we need is
recognition of what we have and where we have it.

In the Wikification of media files, only the files at Commons have so far
been considered. In addition to the mediafiles that should be in Commons
because of their license, there are mediafiles that have all kinds of
licenses and may also be used under the "fair use" doctrine. When there is
one database for any and all mediafiles, many things become possible
including searching and finding files that are "not commercial"..

One significant benefit is that we can phase a fair use file out when there
is a freely available picture.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 15:32, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  Centralized Wiki for NC files will work. It's the same debate when we
> started to put metadata on Commons, it did not stop the process, it just
> made it slower and less efficient, but it remained kinda inevitable.
> It's the same background, the frustration and confusion of the current
> situation is projected to the future one, it's mostly a "passive"
> resistance with a little bit of patronizing attitude toward other
> communities. It happens also because the more some users assume this future
> scenario is inevitable, the easier it is for them to consider the present
> situation as inevitable as well and skip any responsibility, it's a little
> bit an identity element.
>
> Local users are not confused or irritated in general because they are
> moody, it's mostly because the Commons community is moody. Local
> communities are not three or four isolated users, they are structured, with
> a spectrum of established competences. The mass of users involved will come
> from that pool. I am pretty sure that if you build a repository without all
> the users who encouraged most of the dysfunctional attitude we have now on
> Commons, it's going to be better, if not fine. For some of us in the end
> the local user repeating a wrong concept to get a file kept is very similar
> to the Commons user doing the same to make it deleted, the same stubborn
> attitude with limited overall perspective that few people really wanted in
> the first place. These two profiles find a balance but it's not the best
> balance for the general workflow, it's a "social thing". Whatever disrupt
> the situation, give us some chance to improve that.
>
> Of course many users will show there to oppose. And if approved, for the
> first two or three years at every single minor misstep of the process they
> will jump there foretelling disasters: They usually find the time to oppose
> to this sort of requests, more than doing a lot of other tasks probably,
> and the concepts are usually the same. That's why its getting more and more
> difficult to give to it a big weigh.
> In any case, some way to centralize existing NC will be found. For
> example, think about Wikidata item for logos and connect them to local
> files. It will be more tortuous, in a way it's not noticed immediately,
> probably. Until we get there somehow, personally I skip many activities
> regarding NC including their conversion, and focus on something else. I am
> probably not the only one adopting more or less this attitude.
>
> Good outreach for me is not about a single aspect, is a method, and will
> always include a spectrum of results. The statement "no Wikipedia if you
> don't remove NC" is not really so effective, it sounds cheap especially
> after many years Wiki exists and people know what they want. For the
> high-quality material we miss, I think it's more about proposing a good
> project, a structured project and in that framework I can suggest to update
> some NC. I have refused to trick people to give files with no NC, I clearly
> tell them to understand the license. There are many files which were not
> uploaded initially, but those users ended up giving more new files later.
> If I could be a user with a flag for NC upload, I will put a very limited
> amount of files per year, but the process behind such files will be very
> valuable.
>
> A.
>
>Il martedì 14 luglio 2020, 09:41:05 CEST, Erik Moeller <
> eloque...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  James wrote:
>
> > 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
>
> I agree of course that this sort of institutional inertia can be
> incredibly frustrating, especially in cases like WHO -- a publicly
> funded international institution which should be putting its work in
> the public domain. For all its own institutional failings (and there
> are many, past and present), the US was at least able to get that much
> right in its copyright laws more than 100 years ago. I don't believe
> we should let publicly funded institutions that use restrictive
> licensing terms off the hook, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-08 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 WikiNotYetFree is ok, structured search for locally hosted files is ok...  I 
think that there are many different pathways that will lead to more or less a 
certain scenario. 

What should be clear, IMHO, is that some process will occur in any case even if 
somebody stands on the soapbox declaring a general principle about NC. It would 
be hidden in some other aspects here and there, some of the issue raised are 
already in nuce on our platforms.
The more you standardize the process (it does not matter whence you start) the 
more the scaffolding for some well-structured unified repository will be just 
few hours away. What we should avoid is that its creation is done by few 
people, more vertically without a bottom-up process, or even outside our 
wiki-ecosystem, which will make it less efficient for the volunteers.

Small communities with limited human resources and people dedicated to outreach 
need "something". As long as we go in that direction, I am in.
A.M.

   Il sabato 8 agosto 2020, 15:09:14 CEST, WereSpielChequers 
 ha scritto:  
 
 I can see a problem in making a site that contains non free information
freely available to the public. Even if you restricted it to NC and ND
licenses, you risk getting flak from both the reusers and the uploaders
when there are disputes as to whether a particular use is commercial, or
such a poor copy of a work that it counts as derivative. And anything less
free than NC or ND licensed material would be a copyright violation to post
on the internet.

But there is I think a project sized niche that would be a good fit with
the community. A not yet free project.

-
WikiNotYetFree would hold but not make available, works that are not yet
free, list them, categorise them even build metadata for them, and every
year a new tranche of them would be migrated to WikiSource or Wikimedia
Commons as appropriate. You could even have planned uses or deferred edits
"when this image becomes public domain, use it with this caption to replace
this image on Wikidata or Wikipedia".  One of the key bits of data with
each item would be the date or criteria when its copyright lapses and it
becomes public domain.

OK those who cherish the instant gratification of your edit immediately
going live to humanity will probably not be tempted to work on a project
where some of the material will be marked "migrate to Commons in 2090". But
some of us rather like the idea of leaving a digital legacy that will
persist for generations after we have been composted.

A commercial organisation could not take on such a project where most of
the benefit won't be seen for decades to come. But a charity can think long
term. Of course some of these materials will be available in decades to
come and could be loaded to Commons as and when they come out of copyright,
but just because we can get a digital copy of something now we cannot be
certain that digital copies will be available in decades to come - unless
of course we have archived them into a repository such as  WikiNotYetFree

Deletion processes on Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere would be radically
changed if one of the options was now "move to WikiNotYetFree until it
comes out of copyright".

Anyone could access the metadata, but only admins and the individual
uploader would be able to access the files that someone had actually
uploaded.

It also raises the possibility of an outreach campaign to creatives such as
photographers, asking them to preserve their legacy by  putting a clause in
their wills to release their intellectual property under CC-BY-SA once
they've died. "You can't take it with you, but you can make sure your work
is not forgotten"

Now that Wikipedia is almost twenty years old, and the WMF has an endowment
fund, we can start to plan and talk long term with a credibility that
younger organisations and those that lack an endowment fund lack.

I have started a project request at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiNotYetFree

WSC


>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses (Erik Moeller)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:50:57 -0700
> From: Erik Moeller 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses
> Message-ID:
>         zvr...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:52 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should mix NC with free-knowledge licenses .
> > I do absolutely think we should maintain an archive, visible to the
> public
> > with at most a simple hoop to jump through, of material that is offered
> to
> > us in any legal way but not yet free.
>
> Such an archive would _unavoidably_ "mix NC with free-knowledge
> licenses" -- bec

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-08 Thread WereSpielChequers
I can see a problem in making a site that contains non free information
freely available to the public. Even if you restricted it to NC and ND
licenses, you risk getting flak from both the reusers and the uploaders
when there are disputes as to whether a particular use is commercial, or
such a poor copy of a work that it counts as derivative. And anything less
free than NC or ND licensed material would be a copyright violation to post
on the internet.

But there is I think a project sized niche that would be a good fit with
the community. A not yet free project.

-
WikiNotYetFree would hold but not make available, works that are not yet
free, list them, categorise them even build metadata for them, and every
year a new tranche of them would be migrated to WikiSource or Wikimedia
Commons as appropriate. You could even have planned uses or deferred edits
"when this image becomes public domain, use it with this caption to replace
this image on Wikidata or Wikipedia".  One of the key bits of data with
each item would be the date or criteria when its copyright lapses and it
becomes public domain.

OK those who cherish the instant gratification of your edit immediately
going live to humanity will probably not be tempted to work on a project
where some of the material will be marked "migrate to Commons in 2090". But
some of us rather like the idea of leaving a digital legacy that will
persist for generations after we have been composted.

A commercial organisation could not take on such a project where most of
the benefit won't be seen for decades to come. But a charity can think long
term. Of course some of these materials will be available in decades to
come and could be loaded to Commons as and when they come out of copyright,
but just because we can get a digital copy of something now we cannot be
certain that digital copies will be available in decades to come - unless
of course we have archived them into a repository such as  WikiNotYetFree

Deletion processes on Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere would be radically
changed if one of the options was now "move to WikiNotYetFree until it
comes out of copyright".

Anyone could access the metadata, but only admins and the individual
uploader would be able to access the files that someone had actually
uploaded.

It also raises the possibility of an outreach campaign to creatives such as
photographers, asking them to preserve their legacy by  putting a clause in
their wills to release their intellectual property under CC-BY-SA once
they've died. "You can't take it with you, but you can make sure your work
is not forgotten"

Now that Wikipedia is almost twenty years old, and the WMF has an endowment
fund, we can start to plan and talk long term with a credibility that
younger organisations and those that lack an endowment fund lack.

I have started a project request at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiNotYetFree

WSC


>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses (Erik Moeller)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:50:57 -0700
> From: Erik Moeller 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses
> Message-ID:
>  zvr...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:52 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should mix NC with free-knowledge licenses .
> > I do absolutely think we should maintain an archive, visible to the
> public
> > with at most a simple hoop to jump through, of material that is offered
> to
> > us in any legal way but not yet free.
>
> Such an archive would _unavoidably_ "mix NC with free-knowledge
> licenses" -- because all collaborative and transformative work
> happening in the archive itself would be released under free knowledge
> licenses. Worse, any meaningful transformations of the archived works
> would result in derivative works that remain nonfree, directly
> enlisting volunteers in the creation of nonfree knowledge.
>
> In any event, why create an archive for works under borderline terms,
> while ignoring more restricted works that could be plausibly released
> under a free license tomorrow? Works that are nonfree for simple
> economic reasons (e.g., some old but useful textbook) may often be
> easier to "set free" than those which are nonfree for reasons of
> longstanding policy (e.g, the WHO example). Why amass the latter and
> ignore the former? I don't see how this would strengthen Wikimedia's
> free knowledge commitment, but I can easily see how it could weaken it
> considerably and very quickly, whether or not that's the intent.
>
> To be clear, I think creating free summaries and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-07 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 We have an archive mixing different licenses now, one is Commons ranging from 
CC-0 to CC BY SA, and other ones are local Wikis sometimes including in their 
spectrum of situations many non-free files in fair use. this is proof that an 
archive hosting non-free files with other free-licensed information has nothing 
special per se. A new archive might simply be more clear and linear than those, 
since it would be designed specifically to handle the matter.

I work in outreach the whole time, you can give me all the money you want to 
improve my productivity, but I would still use it more efficiently if I could 
have a more integrated infrastructure specifically for this issue.
A.


Il venerdì 7 agosto 2020, 08:52:31 CEST, Erik Moeller  
ha scritto:  
 
 On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:52 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I don't think we should mix NC with free-knowledge licenses .
> I do absolutely think we should maintain an archive, visible to the public
> with at most a simple hoop to jump through, of material that is offered to
> us in any legal way but not yet free.

Such an archive would _unavoidably_ "mix NC with free-knowledge
licenses" -- because all collaborative and transformative work
happening in the archive itself would be released under free knowledge
licenses. Worse, any meaningful transformations of the archived works
would result in derivative works that remain nonfree, directly
enlisting volunteers in the creation of nonfree knowledge.

In any event, why create an archive for works under borderline terms,
while ignoring more restricted works that could be plausibly released
under a free license tomorrow? Works that are nonfree for simple
economic reasons (e.g., some old but useful textbook) may often be
easier to "set free" than those which are nonfree for reasons of
longstanding policy (e.g, the WHO example). Why amass the latter and
ignore the former? I don't see how this would strengthen Wikimedia's
free knowledge commitment, but I can easily see how it could weaken it
considerably and very quickly, whether or not that's the intent.

To be clear, I think creating free summaries and descriptions of
nonfree works (from traditional textbooks and scientific papers to
Khan Academy videos) is very much in line with the Wikimedia mission.
I don't think it requires hosting the works. To the extent that there
is concern about losing access to works that are currently available
via public URLs, the use of Internet Archive enabled citation URLs
provides a great example for how to avoid such link rot.

I'm sure there are also plenty of tech and non-tech ways Wikimedia
could support volunteers and chapters that work on outreach to set
more educational works free, none of which require the creation of a
nonfree archive.

Warmly,
Erik

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-07 Thread Erik Moeller
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:52 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I don't think we should mix NC with free-knowledge licenses .
> I do absolutely think we should maintain an archive, visible to the public
> with at most a simple hoop to jump through, of material that is offered to
> us in any legal way but not yet free.

Such an archive would _unavoidably_ "mix NC with free-knowledge
licenses" -- because all collaborative and transformative work
happening in the archive itself would be released under free knowledge
licenses. Worse, any meaningful transformations of the archived works
would result in derivative works that remain nonfree, directly
enlisting volunteers in the creation of nonfree knowledge.

In any event, why create an archive for works under borderline terms,
while ignoring more restricted works that could be plausibly released
under a free license tomorrow? Works that are nonfree for simple
economic reasons (e.g., some old but useful textbook) may often be
easier to "set free" than those which are nonfree for reasons of
longstanding policy (e.g, the WHO example). Why amass the latter and
ignore the former? I don't see how this would strengthen Wikimedia's
free knowledge commitment, but I can easily see how it could weaken it
considerably and very quickly, whether or not that's the intent.

To be clear, I think creating free summaries and descriptions of
nonfree works (from traditional textbooks and scientific papers to
Khan Academy videos) is very much in line with the Wikimedia mission.
I don't think it requires hosting the works. To the extent that there
is concern about losing access to works that are currently available
via public URLs, the use of Internet Archive enabled citation URLs
provides a great example for how to avoid such link rot.

I'm sure there are also plenty of tech and non-tech ways Wikimedia
could support volunteers and chapters that work on outreach to set
more educational works free, none of which require the creation of a
nonfree archive.

Warmly,
Erik

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-02 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 Most of the proposal for NC usually pushed for a separate infrastructure, as 
far as I know. I'm not a fan of a unified archive, for example I am fine with a 
separate one. 

As I said, I also see it as a great way to experiment many features we can't 
have on Commons, maybe even a truly multimedia archive with both files and 
texts in a distant future, but I digress here.

Since there are hints in this discussion, I also hoped such infrastructure to 
act as a "preparation" environment of legal transition of copyright works into 
the public domain, where it is possible to prepare files with metadata and so 
on, so they can be moved on January, 1st with a click. it's a good compromise, 
you can keep maybe non-fully free files on Wikipedia for strict educational 
purpose as long as you provide a high quality description on such archive. it 
catalyzes content and quality.

For example, I handle a dozen of potentially ambiguous files every month, i 
would love to have a platform designed to host those, where I can put all the 
useful information I have discovered in any case (date, author, etc) without 
losing them because I cannot be sure 100% the files are free or some user will 
not ask me later to prove they are as ancient as they claim to be. With a good 
Wikidata-centric structure, it can really work. 

If we really want to go in that direction, we can handle it with clear rules 
for the upload, the access or the download.

This reminds me of a similar discussion about hidden copyright violations. if 
100s sysops can still see them, why not 500s patrollers or 5000s certified 
long-term autopatrolled users? Where is the difference? They are still not 
public in any case, I simply have to ask a sysop to tell what's there, using 
minutes I could use to create content. If you are fine with this access by some 
users, or with the limited views of versions to be validated on some wikis, you 
can understand a restricted access in general, you just need to establish its 
role. It simply needs a functional role to be declared in the infrastructure, 
and we have some ideas. We can debate later how much such files can be seen by 
the general public or by only registered users. For example you can declare 
that the logos of a company can be seen by all Wikipedias in ns0 (but non 
Wikisource or Wikiquote or Wikivoyage, for example), or that the access is 
totally restricted for the general public, or that the link it's in the 
articles like what you can find for Commons categories but the download is 
limited, o the resolution is.

Also,if you just put a limit of files per person or a threshold of cross-wiki 
edit to or a special flag for the upload, it can grow naturally for many years 
without exploding, more in agreement with a functional growth of the content 
that we are hosting.
Alessandro

Il lunedì 3 agosto 2020, 00:53:11 CEST, Samuel Klein  ha 
scritto:  
 
 I don't think we should mix NC with free-knowledge licenses .
I do absolutely think we should maintain an archive, visible to the public
with at most a simple hoop to jump through, of material that is offered to
us in any legal way but not yet free.
This would include: material currently under a CC or other non-fd license,
material that can be reasonably assumed to belong to the uploader but has
not yet been so demonstrated and (c) cleared by our various processes, free
material whose use and classification is otherwise under debate.

Primary uses of such an archive:
~ Capturing the first step of any freely-licensed sharing: having a
persistent copy of the work, with initial license + uploader information,
and a nominal contact to pursue
~ Centralizing subsequent public discussions about how to make interesting
materials free : by relicensing, recreation, or other method
~ Preserving work done to annotate/classify works where license turns out
to be ambiguous
~ Simplifying other deletion and license discussions that are inefficient
and confusing now

If there are motivational reasons to make the result of such archiving "not
as visible online" or "not as convenient as Commons", that's easily done
without restricting public access or {item name resolution}.

S




On Mon., Jul. 13, 2020, 2:24 a.m. Pete Forsyth, 
wrote:

> Erik, thanks for posting the essay here. Glad to see the interest in this
> topic.
>
> I wrote this because I have found that when somebody asks me about the NC
> provision, I often want to point them to a simple webpage (rather than
> "reinventing the wheel" every time it comes up). There are some pages out
> there (I listed some in the "See also" section), but I have yet to find
> somewhere this particular point -- the need of a general license to issue
> clear guidance -- articulated anywhere in a concise, accessible way.
>
> I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see that the possibility of
> Wikimedia generally accepting NC-licensed work is being discussed. But
> apart from that discussion, I think many of you in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-08-02 Thread Samuel Klein
I don't think we should mix NC with free-knowledge licenses .
I do absolutely think we should maintain an archive, visible to the public
with at most a simple hoop to jump through, of material that is offered to
us in any legal way but not yet free.
This would include: material currently under a CC or other non-fd license,
material that can be reasonably assumed to belong to the uploader but has
not yet been so demonstrated and (c) cleared by our various processes, free
material whose use and classification is otherwise under debate.

Primary uses of such an archive:
~ Capturing the first step of any freely-licensed sharing: having a
persistent copy of the work, with initial license + uploader information,
and a nominal contact to pursue
~ Centralizing subsequent public discussions about how to make interesting
materials free : by relicensing, recreation, or other method
~ Preserving work done to annotate/classify works where license turns out
to be ambiguous
~ Simplifying other deletion and license discussions that are inefficient
and confusing now

If there are motivational reasons to make the result of such archiving "not
as visible online" or "not as convenient as Commons", that's easily done
without restricting public access or {item name resolution}.

S




On Mon., Jul. 13, 2020, 2:24 a.m. Pete Forsyth, 
wrote:

> Erik, thanks for posting the essay here. Glad to see the interest in this
> topic.
>
> I wrote this because I have found that when somebody asks me about the NC
> provision, I often want to point them to a simple webpage (rather than
> "reinventing the wheel" every time it comes up). There are some pages out
> there (I listed some in the "See also" section), but I have yet to find
> somewhere this particular point -- the need of a general license to issue
> clear guidance -- articulated anywhere in a concise, accessible way.
>
> I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see that the possibility of
> Wikimedia generally accepting NC-licensed work is being discussed. But
> apart from that discussion, I think many of you in this discussion have, at
> one time or another, wanted to help guide someone toward using a more
> permissive license, rather than a NC license.
>
> For those who have, do you have favorite webpages you find helpful to
> share? Does this one seem like a useful addition? I'd appreciate any
> feedback or constructive edits to this essay; I also think it would be
> useful to have some of the other arguments, currently collected in longer
> documents, expressed in more "bite-sized" pieces like this, which could be
> linked together. Do others agree, and if so, are you inclined to help draft
> some complementary pages?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM effe iets anders  >
> wrote:
>
> > The question is however as well: how many open licensed content creators
> > would switch to NC if they were aware that this would be 'good enough'
> for
> > Wikipedia - even if that means in reality only English Wikipedia (but who
> > cares about other languages) and without actually allowing to build on
> top
> > of it?
> >
> > I have found the argument 'don't use NC because then it can't be used on
> > Wikipedia' rather convincing in the past. It will not always work, and I
> > also wish it would convince /more/ organizations. But then, I would also
> > wish that enwiki wouldn't use fair use exceptions - so maybe I'm not the
> > benchmark you'd be looking at anyway.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 disallow any such use.
> > > >
> > > > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the
> WMF
> > > > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> > > > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This
> could
> > > > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> > > > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> > > > license.
> > > >
> > > > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-20 Thread Juergen Fenn


Am 12.07.20 um 10:40 Uhr schrieb Ziko van Dijk:
> So the problem of the NC module remains that many who apply it are not
> always conscious about undesired consequences,  while some who apply it use
> the module very consciously for a specific reason - e.g. in a hybrid model,
> to distribute content but not to share it, to reserve commercial use
> exclusively for oneself. I do not want to judge about this intention, but I
> imagine that it can become problematic when your goal is to build a
> knowledge *commons*.


As far as I remember, CC was not about building a Commons in the first
place. Rather, it was about hacking copyright law so as to make it
easier to share materials online and to prevent users from breaking the
law when doing something related to copyright. I remember a talk by
Lawrence Lessig a long time ago when he said a copyright law a
15-year-old does not understand is bad copyright law. His aim was to
change something about this.

I would say CC licences have failed for a different reason. Most users
still do not understand how to licence an item properly, viz., how to
use to attribution clause correctly with the copyright holder's name BY,
the work's title and the correct license according to the rules. This is
still too difficult for most people.

And, secondly, we have not become a nation of remixers because the most
important case or reusing materials is retweeting etc. on social
networks which, as we all know, will not do with free licences altogether.

And, thirdly, still no system has been established the really creative
people publishing under CC can make a living if everyone is free to use
and re-use their works. So the social question deems on the horizon,
stil, after so many years. Think about this when talking about the NC
clause.

Regards,
Jürgen.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-14 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 Centralized Wiki for NC files will work. It's the same debate when we started 
to put metadata on Commons, it did not stop the process, it just made it slower 
and less efficient, but it remained kinda inevitable.
It's the same background, the frustration and confusion of the current 
situation is projected to the future one, it's mostly a "passive" resistance 
with a little bit of patronizing attitude toward other communities. It happens 
also because the more some users assume this future scenario is inevitable, the 
easier it is for them to consider the present situation as inevitable as well 
and skip any responsibility, it's a little bit an identity element.

Local users are not confused or irritated in general because they are moody, 
it's mostly because the Commons community is moody. Local communities are not 
three or four isolated users, they are structured, with a spectrum of 
established competences. The mass of users involved will come from that pool. I 
am pretty sure that if you build a repository without all the users who 
encouraged most of the dysfunctional attitude we have now on Commons, it's 
going to be better, if not fine. For some of us in the end the local user 
repeating a wrong concept to get a file kept is very similar to the Commons 
user doing the same to make it deleted, the same stubborn attitude with limited 
overall perspective that few people really wanted in the first place. These two 
profiles find a balance but it's not the best balance for the general workflow, 
it's a "social thing". Whatever disrupt the situation, give us some chance to 
improve that.

Of course many users will show there to oppose. And if approved, for the first 
two or three years at every single minor misstep of the process they will jump 
there foretelling disasters: They usually find the time to oppose to this sort 
of requests, more than doing a lot of other tasks probably, and the concepts 
are usually the same. That's why its getting more and more difficult to give to 
it a big weigh.
In any case, some way to centralize existing NC will be found. For example, 
think about Wikidata item for logos and connect them to local files. It will be 
more tortuous, in a way it's not noticed immediately, probably. Until we get 
there somehow, personally I skip many activities regarding NC including their 
conversion, and focus on something else. I am probably not the only one 
adopting more or less this attitude. 

Good outreach for me is not about a single aspect, is a method, and will always 
include a spectrum of results. The statement "no Wikipedia if you don't remove 
NC" is not really so effective, it sounds cheap especially after many years 
Wiki exists and people know what they want. For the high-quality material we 
miss, I think it's more about proposing a good project, a structured project 
and in that framework I can suggest to update some NC. I have refused to trick 
people to give files with no NC, I clearly tell them to understand the license. 
There are many files which were not uploaded initially, but those users ended 
up giving more new files later. If I could be a user with a flag for NC upload, 
I will put a very limited amount of files per year, but the process behind such 
files will be very valuable. 

A.

   Il martedì 14 luglio 2020, 09:41:05 CEST, Erik Moeller  
ha scritto:  
 
 James wrote:

> 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.

I agree of course that this sort of institutional inertia can be
incredibly frustrating, especially in cases like WHO -- a publicly
funded international institution which should be putting its work in
the public domain. For all its own institutional failings (and there
are many, past and present), the US was at least able to get that much
right in its copyright laws more than 100 years ago. I don't believe
we should let publicly funded institutions that use restrictive
licensing terms off the hook, and there's a degree to which positive
persuasion needs to be coupled with public pressure here.

Like Pete, I'm curious about resources & practices folks have found
useful in persuading individuals or institutions to release materials
under free licenses. I'll reiterate that my sense is that _new_
partnerships that focus on material yet to be created may be a good
way to get a foot in the door, so to speak.

Alessandro wrote:

> At least, we should start centralizing that non-free material locally uploaded
> since it's already there. I would like logos of Universities and coat of arms
> of public administration and doubtful old images that according to some
> platforms are free but for Commons are not (gray areas), to be on a NC
> part of Commons, or a dedicated platform (i always link
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki_(2).

I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-14 Thread Erik Moeller
James wrote:

> 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.

I agree of course that this sort of institutional inertia can be
incredibly frustrating, especially in cases like WHO -- a publicly
funded international institution which should be putting its work in
the public domain. For all its own institutional failings (and there
are many, past and present), the US was at least able to get that much
right in its copyright laws more than 100 years ago. I don't believe
we should let publicly funded institutions that use restrictive
licensing terms off the hook, and there's a degree to which positive
persuasion needs to be coupled with public pressure here.

Like Pete, I'm curious about resources & practices folks have found
useful in persuading individuals or institutions to release materials
under free licenses. I'll reiterate that my sense is that _new_
partnerships that focus on material yet to be created may be a good
way to get a foot in the door, so to speak.

Alessandro wrote:

> At least, we should start centralizing that non-free material locally uploaded
> since it's already there. I would like logos of Universities and coat of arms
> of public administration and doubtful old images that according to some
> platforms are free but for Commons are not (gray areas), to be on a NC
> part of Commons, or a dedicated platform (i always link
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki_(2).

I agree that a nonfree wiki that does not alter existing policies
(i.e. is not intended to open the door to NC) is a reasonable thing to
consider for practical reasons; however, I personally oppose these
proposals on practical grounds. While the opposition to the main
proposal is currently a minority, I suspect the ratio would change
rather quickly if the proposals were more widely announced.

I see two primary scenarios for how a nonfree wiki could play out:

- scenario A: a nonfree wiki is successful at policing uploads and
usage consistent with the policies across wikis. Uploaders from those
communities are frequently frustrated and confused by deletions,
discussion, and policies of the nonfree wiki, just as they are
frustrated by deletions, discussions, and policies on Wikimedia
Commons today. With one more wiki in the mix, the process of uploading
files is increasingly seen to be akin to a Klingon Pain Stick Ritual.

- scenario B: a nonfree wiki is unsuccessful at policing uploads, and
becomes a DMCA magnet or worse. Communities are frustrated because
their own rules for limiting nonfree uploads are frequently violated
through the transclusion of files from the nonfree repository.

In fact, a combination of those two scenarios -- where there's deep
frustration about both enforcement and lack thereof -- seems most
likely to me.

It's worth asking whether there are good ways to improve the handling
and patrolling of nonfree files. I suspect there are many, but I'm
pretty sure the creation of a separate repository for this stuff is an
idea that doesn't withstand scrutiny. Exemptions must be considered in
a project-local context, both in terms of policy and concrete use, by
a community in its own language, and any improvements to efficiency
must start from this central premise.

Warmly,
Erik

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-13 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 I would probably never try to convince somebody about NC license. It sounds 
pushy and almost never works, it's like optimizing a process that has a 0.1% 
output. of course I can spend less time to do so, and maybe double the effect, 
but it's still a limited output. 

I prefer to agree with them, build a trust, produce other content with such 
trust (that is not related to files of their production) and than, maybe, we 
face the issue of images.
For example I almost convinced an artist to give me in free license 
reproductions of his public artworks that are already destroyed, until a person 
close to him stopped him (and he agreed with me prgamatically, I think that he 
stopped only for sentimental reason)
There are other way to get free files ad they have nothing to do about "being 
used on Wikipedia". if you want to be used on Wikipedia, you put it there, in 
my experience this is not a critical factor in changing the opinion. For 
example Wiki Science Competition gets files also from scientists that would 
normally use NC, but it's not really about explaining the license, it's about 
getting a prize, a visibility and being part of a network, a strat a discussion 
about outreach. 

Alessandro


Il lunedì 13 luglio 2020, 08:25:39 CEST, Pete Forsyth 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Erik, thanks for posting the essay here. Glad to see the interest in this
topic.

I wrote this because I have found that when somebody asks me about the NC
provision, I often want to point them to a simple webpage (rather than
"reinventing the wheel" every time it comes up). There are some pages out
there (I listed some in the "See also" section), but I have yet to find
somewhere this particular point -- the need of a general license to issue
clear guidance -- articulated anywhere in a concise, accessible way.

I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see that the possibility of
Wikimedia generally accepting NC-licensed work is being discussed. But
apart from that discussion, I think many of you in this discussion have, at
one time or another, wanted to help guide someone toward using a more
permissive license, rather than a NC license.

For those who have, do you have favorite webpages you find helpful to
share? Does this one seem like a useful addition? I'd appreciate any
feedback or constructive edits to this essay; I also think it would be
useful to have some of the other arguments, currently collected in longer
documents, expressed in more "bite-sized" pieces like this, which could be
linked together. Do others agree, and if so, are you inclined to help draft
some complementary pages?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> The question is however as well: how many open licensed content creators
> would switch to NC if they were aware that this would be 'good enough' for
> Wikipedia - even if that means in reality only English Wikipedia (but who
> cares about other languages) and without actually allowing to build on top
> of it?
>
> I have found the argument 'don't use NC because then it can't be used on
> Wikipedia' rather convincing in the past. It will not always work, and I
> also wish it would convince /more/ organizations. But then, I would also
> wish that enwiki wouldn't use fair use exceptions - so maybe I'm not the
> benchmark you'd be looking at anyway.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 disallow any such use.
> > >
> > > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> > > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> > > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> > > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> > > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> > > license.
> > >
> > > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
> > >
> > > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> > > want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> > > can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> > > altering the incentive structure for contributors. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
Erik, thanks for posting the essay here. Glad to see the interest in this
topic.

I wrote this because I have found that when somebody asks me about the NC
provision, I often want to point them to a simple webpage (rather than
"reinventing the wheel" every time it comes up). There are some pages out
there (I listed some in the "See also" section), but I have yet to find
somewhere this particular point -- the need of a general license to issue
clear guidance -- articulated anywhere in a concise, accessible way.

I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see that the possibility of
Wikimedia generally accepting NC-licensed work is being discussed. But
apart from that discussion, I think many of you in this discussion have, at
one time or another, wanted to help guide someone toward using a more
permissive license, rather than a NC license.

For those who have, do you have favorite webpages you find helpful to
share? Does this one seem like a useful addition? I'd appreciate any
feedback or constructive edits to this essay; I also think it would be
useful to have some of the other arguments, currently collected in longer
documents, expressed in more "bite-sized" pieces like this, which could be
linked together. Do others agree, and if so, are you inclined to help draft
some complementary pages?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> The question is however as well: how many open licensed content creators
> would switch to NC if they were aware that this would be 'good enough' for
> Wikipedia - even if that means in reality only English Wikipedia (but who
> cares about other languages) and without actually allowing to build on top
> of it?
>
> I have found the argument 'don't use NC because then it can't be used on
> Wikipedia' rather convincing in the past. It will not always work, and I
> also wish it would convince /more/ organizations. But then, I would also
> wish that enwiki wouldn't use fair use exceptions - so maybe I'm not the
> benchmark you'd be looking at anyway.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 disallow any such use.
> > >
> > > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> > > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> > > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> > > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> > > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> > > license.
> > >
> > > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
> > >
> > > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> > > want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> > > can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> > > altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> > > Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> > > licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> > > poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
> > > nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
> > > is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
> > > some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
> > > Wikimedia projects?
> > >
> > > If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
> > > free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
> > > strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
> > > short-sighted.
> > >
> > > Warmly,
> > > Erik
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-12 Thread effe iets anders
The question is however as well: how many open licensed content creators
would switch to NC if they were aware that this would be 'good enough' for
Wikipedia - even if that means in reality only English Wikipedia (but who
cares about other languages) and without actually allowing to build on top
of it?

I have found the argument 'don't use NC because then it can't be used on
Wikipedia' rather convincing in the past. It will not always work, and I
also wish it would convince /more/ organizations. But then, I would also
wish that enwiki wouldn't use fair use exceptions - so maybe I'm not the
benchmark you'd be looking at anyway.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM James Heilman  wrote:

> 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > 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 disallow any such use.
> >
> > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> > license.
> >
> > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
> >
> > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> > want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> > can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> > altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> > Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> > licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> > poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
> > nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
> > is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
> > some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
> > Wikimedia projects?
> >
> > If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
> > free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
> > strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
> > short-sighted.
> >
> > Warmly,
> > Erik
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-12 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 People are not conscious of NC module also because we don't take a clear 
approach about it. Centralizing the storage of NC files is probably one of the 
clear step to make the community and third parties more conscious. 

One of the causes of the current confusion is precisely because we treat them 
is as something marginal while they are already structural in our ecosystem.
Alessandro
Il domenica 12 luglio 2020, 10:52:04 CEST, Ziko van Dijk 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Hello,
Thank you for the link, Erik, I am going to read Pete Forsyth‘s text
carefully. My thinking about the module was influenced by some WMD
publications, by Till Kreutzer and also this one:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf
So I learned about the problems of the module. In general I find it most
unfortunate when a reuser has to evaluate a larger work for its elements
and its different licenses - often you do not only reuse one monolithic
piece but something consisting of smaller elements, or a larger group of
elements (e.g. dozens of pictures about a topic).
The more I was surprised when in the Strategy 2030 discussions and then
recommendations the modules ND and NC were called necessary for the needs
of the Global South. Though I am not a absolute or ideological opponent of
any module, I wondered about the reasons and I never got an answer. In the
meanwhile, the modules disappeared from the recommendations, and that is
just good so.
So the problem of the NC module remains that many who apply it are not
always conscious about undesired consequences,  while some who apply it use
the module very consciously for a specific reason - e.g. in a hybrid model,
to distribute content but not to share it, to reserve commercial use
exclusively for oneself. I do not want to judge about this intention, but I
imagine that it can become problematic when your goal is to build a
knowledge *commons*.
Kind regards
Ziko





Benjamin Lees  schrieb am So. 12. Juli 2020 um 09:31:

> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did not
> > provide such options?
> >
>
> It's pretty hard to be sure about the hypothetical behavior of
> individuals.  Undoubtedly, as you say, there are some people who are *only*
> willing to submit material to us if it is NC, and thus we currently lose
> out on material from them.  Undoubtedly, as Erik says, there are also some
> people who submit material to us under a free license but would choose an
> NC license if it were available, and thus we currently gain the benefit of
> their work being freely licensed, rather than NC.  I suspect the latter
> pool is far larger than the former.
>
> When the choice is truly between a particular non-free image and not having
> any image, fair use (for projects with fair use policies) already allows us
> to use that image.  In other cases, it may be that no free image is
> available right now, but someone can go out and take one.  There would be
> much less incentive to do so if we were already using an NC image, so such
> stopgaps would likely become permanent.
>
> Of course, there will be attractive edge cases where we can fairly
> confidently say "the choice is NC or nothing".  But we cannot be ruled by
> edge cases; we must weigh them against the costs of complexity, confusion,
> and unfairness that we would be creating for ourselves (to say nothing of
> the additional headache we would create for reusers).
>
> Emufarmers
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-12 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 look, I have spoken with dozen of artists so far, the missing opportunity in 
almost zero. The cost of the confusion and the waste of time is still a lot. I 
have stopped even trying, I simply say immediately "of course you would like to 
give NC, you can't, because there are strong ideological positions. Plus OTRS 
is far from efficient, so let's just focus on something else". They appreciate 
my pragmatism and I use the credit to upload more content on other issues. Fine 
with me, I like to have good credit with competent people. Sorry for Wiki.
   Il domenica 12 luglio 2020, 09:31:12 CEST, Benjamin Lees 
 ha scritto:  
 
 On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did not 
provide such options?


It's pretty hard to be sure about the hypothetical behavior of individuals.  
Undoubtedly, as you say, there are some people who are only willing to submit 
material to us if it is NC, and thus we currently lose out on material from 
them.  Undoubtedly, as Erik says, there are also some people who submit 
material to us under a free license but would choose an NC license if it were 
available, and thus we currently gain the benefit of their work being freely 
licensed, rather than NC.  I suspect the latter pool is far larger than the 
former.
When the choice is truly between a particular non-free image and not having any 
image, fair use (for projects with fair use policies) already allows us to use 
that image.  In other cases, it may be that no free image is available right 
now, but someone can go out and take one.  There would be much less incentive 
to do so if we were already using an NC image, so such stopgaps would likely 
become permanent.
Of course, there will be attractive edge cases where we can fairly confidently 
say "the choice is NC or nothing".  But we cannot be ruled by edge cases; we 
must weigh them against the costs of complexity, confusion, and unfairness that 
we would be creating for ourselves (to say nothing of the additional headache 
we would create for reusers).
Emufarmers
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-12 Thread WereSpielChequers
Doc James raised the issue of pragmatism v idealism and that essay is
indeed rather focussed on the idealistic arguments against NC.

EmuFarmers has touched on the pragmatic side of the debate, and I think it
worth reminding ourselves about that dimension as well. So here are some
pragmatic arguments against us hosting NC content:

1 For some users NC content and the ambiguity about it is a commercial
opportunity. There is minimal cost to distributing emails threatening
takedown notices and other legal sanction, and for many small resusers the
cost of checking their case with a lawyer is less than the cost of paying
to use what they thought was free to use and maybe writing a letter of
complaint to the media library that let them down. Few of our volunteers
are going to be keen to volunteer to handle such complaints, whether or not
the use was clearly NC, clearly commercial or down right ambiguous.

2 We have been hosting openly licensed material for nearly two decades and
we now have a lot of it. If we now change to allowing NC on Commons, some
of our contributors, institutional or individual, will want to shift their
material  from an open licence to NC. Whether or not we allow this, the
disruption and complications are not something that the Commons volunteer
community is geared up to handle.

3 Ideally when we choose an image to illustrate a Wikipedia article we are
choosing the best image available to us on Commons. OK there are people
whose ego gets in the way and prefer to use the images they have taken, and
occasionally there are other arguments, but it is rare for anyone to have a
commercial incentive to choose one image over another. Once you allow NC
imagery you make Wikipedia a shop window for content from image libraries
and others who are prepared to forego the genuinely non commercial uses,
and the uses in parts of the world where copyright is hard to enforce, in
return for revenue from the unwary in parts of the world where they can
charge for any use they can argue is "commercial". Wikipedia has enough on
its hands combatting spammers and reputation managers who want our content
to promote their business, Opening up a whole new front in that conflict,
against a group of editors "upgrading" images to ones they strongly assert
are "better quality" without necessarily disclosing their conflict of
interest re those images is not something that the Wikipedia volunteer
community is geared up to handle.


Those are three pragmatic reasons why it would be a mistake for us to allow
NC images on Commons and the English Wikipedia. This is one of those areas
where pragmatism and idealism both push us in the same direction.

Regards

WereSpielChequers

>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 18:31:54 -0600
> From: James Heilman 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses
> Message-ID:
>  zv8xsa4kfkngpbwrtymapcmpkcg1b69m0xdp...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > 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 disallow any such use.
> >
> > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> > license.
> >
> > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
> >
> > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> > want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> > can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> > altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> > Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> > licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> > poor" (your words) op

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-12 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,
Thank you for the link, Erik, I am going to read Pete Forsyth‘s text
carefully. My thinking about the module was influenced by some WMD
publications, by Till Kreutzer and also this one:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf
So I learned about the problems of the module. In general I find it most
unfortunate when a reuser has to evaluate a larger work for its elements
and its different licenses - often you do not only reuse one monolithic
piece but something consisting of smaller elements, or a larger group of
elements (e.g. dozens of pictures about a topic).
The more I was surprised when in the Strategy 2030 discussions and then
recommendations the modules ND and NC were called necessary for the needs
of the Global South. Though I am not a absolute or ideological opponent of
any module, I wondered about the reasons and I never got an answer. In the
meanwhile, the modules disappeared from the recommendations, and that is
just good so.
So the problem of the NC module remains that many who apply it are not
always conscious about undesired consequences,  while some who apply it use
the module very consciously for a specific reason - e.g. in a hybrid model,
to distribute content but not to share it, to reserve commercial use
exclusively for oneself. I do not want to judge about this intention, but I
imagine that it can become problematic when your goal is to build a
knowledge *commons*.
Kind regards
Ziko





Benjamin Lees  schrieb am So. 12. Juli 2020 um 09:31:

> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did not
> > provide such options?
> >
>
> It's pretty hard to be sure about the hypothetical behavior of
> individuals.  Undoubtedly, as you say, there are some people who are *only*
> willing to submit material to us if it is NC, and thus we currently lose
> out on material from them.  Undoubtedly, as Erik says, there are also some
> people who submit material to us under a free license but would choose an
> NC license if it were available, and thus we currently gain the benefit of
> their work being freely licensed, rather than NC.  I suspect the latter
> pool is far larger than the former.
>
> When the choice is truly between a particular non-free image and not having
> any image, fair use (for projects with fair use policies) already allows us
> to use that image.  In other cases, it may be that no free image is
> available right now, but someone can go out and take one.  There would be
> much less incentive to do so if we were already using an NC image, so such
> stopgaps would likely become permanent.
>
> Of course, there will be attractive edge cases where we can fairly
> confidently say "the choice is NC or nothing".  But we cannot be ruled by
> edge cases; we must weigh them against the costs of complexity, confusion,
> and unfairness that we would be creating for ourselves (to say nothing of
> the additional headache we would create for reusers).
>
> Emufarmers
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-12 Thread Benjamin Lees
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did not
> provide such options?
>

It's pretty hard to be sure about the hypothetical behavior of
individuals.  Undoubtedly, as you say, there are some people who are *only*
willing to submit material to us if it is NC, and thus we currently lose
out on material from them.  Undoubtedly, as Erik says, there are also some
people who submit material to us under a free license but would choose an
NC license if it were available, and thus we currently gain the benefit of
their work being freely licensed, rather than NC.  I suspect the latter
pool is far larger than the former.

When the choice is truly between a particular non-free image and not having
any image, fair use (for projects with fair use policies) already allows us
to use that image.  In other cases, it may be that no free image is
available right now, but someone can go out and take one.  There would be
much less incentive to do so if we were already using an NC image, so such
stopgaps would likely become permanent.

Of course, there will be attractive edge cases where we can fairly
confidently say "the choice is NC or nothing".  But we cannot be ruled by
edge cases; we must weigh them against the costs of complexity, confusion,
and unfairness that we would be creating for ourselves (to say nothing of
the additional headache we would create for reusers).

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 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, we should start centralizing that non-free material locally uploaded 
since it's already there. I would like logos of Universities and coat of arms 
of public administration and doubtful old images that according to some 
platforms are free but for Commons are not (gray areas), to be on a NC part of 
Commons, or a dedicated platform (i always link 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki_(2). it's just more rational. 

If we did so, we could start from there and see where it goes. We will have a 
list of established exceptions (that we accept already, just locally), we can 
add few more ones. it's not a definitive solution, it's a process that we 
should face together.

I think specifically we should accept NC if it's better than what it is 
currently available from the uploader. For example if an artist give us a 
reproduction of its artwork in NC for Wikipedia, is it still better than 
nothing? Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did 
not provide such options? We probbaly all suspect it's the max we can can get 
to the world in that scenario. This approach for example will not apply to the 
case of WHO, in their case is not a clear improvement, so no upload. 

If you put a limited group of users in charge of that process, or some funnel 
step in the procedure, it will never be massive, but it might be targeted and 
useful, IMHO.
Alex



Il domenica 12 luglio 2020, 02:33:04 CEST, James Heilman  
ha scritto:  
 
 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.

James

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 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 disallow any such use.
>
> I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> license.
>
> > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
>
> I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
> nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
> is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
> some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
> Wikimedia projects?
>
> If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
> free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
> strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
> short-sighted.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread James Heilman
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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.

James

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 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 disallow any such use.
>
> I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> license.
>
> > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
>
> I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
> nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
> is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
> some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
> Wikimedia projects?
>
> If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
> free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
> strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
> short-sighted.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread Erik Moeller
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 disallow any such use.

I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
license.

> This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.

I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
Wikimedia projects?

If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
short-sighted.

Warmly,
Erik

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread James Heilman
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 I would argue that allowing fair use on EN WP brings a lot less benefit
to our users than would allowing NC videos or images.

This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism. We IMO should not let
striving for perfection prevent us from taking steps towards becoming more
useful. Do the majority of our users care if the videos we contain are only
fully openly licensed, would they be upset to see CC BY SA NC videos? I
doubt it, and for the small minority that do we just need to clearly mark
things.

I and others have tried for over 10 years to convince both Khan and the
World Health Organization to adopt open licenses. They have decided to
stick to using NC.
James

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:52 PM Kat Walsh  wrote:

> 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 insufficient support.
>
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-December/008087.html
>
> I'm not sure what the current attitudes are at CC but I think it's no
> more likely than before.
>
> -Kat
>
> > Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC
> licenses?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 11 Jul 2020, at 22:59, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):
> > >
> > >
> https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent
> > >
> > > It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
> > > almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
> > > complements the longer (dated!) essay at
> > > https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.
> > >
> > > Warmly,
> > >
> > > Erik
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread Kat Walsh
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 insufficient support.

https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-December/008087.html

I'm not sure what the current attitudes are at CC but I think it's no
more likely than before.

-Kat

> Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC licenses?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 11 Jul 2020, at 22:59, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> >
> > 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 resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):
> >
> > https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent
> >
> > It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
> > almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
> > complements the longer (dated!) essay at
> > https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.
> >
> > Warmly,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread Erik Moeller
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

https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC is the canonical location of
that essay. I and others have updated it a bit since it was first
written, but it could definitely use some love :)

> Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC licenses?

I doubt it given how pervasive it is. Back when those discussion were
hot, we were able to convince CC to add the "Approved for Free
Cultural Works" stamp you see on license pages like this one, to set
them apart more clearly:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

It would be nice to see CC take a more active stance in at least
discouraging the use of NC in circumstances where it's not appropriate
(it's possible I've missed some work by CC to that effect).

Warmly,
Erik

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread Michael Peel
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 
http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf
 is similar. Pete’s new essay seems to agree with that.

Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC licenses?

Thanks,
Mike

> On 11 Jul 2020, at 22:59, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 
> 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 resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):
> 
> https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent
> 
> It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
> almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
> complements the longer (dated!) essay at
> https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.
> 
> Warmly,
> 
> Erik
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread Erik Moeller
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 resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):

https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent

It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
complements the longer (dated!) essay at
https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.

Warmly,

Erik

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