Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
Kat, Thanks for the comments. You say that CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see as a major concern. Would you be able to encourage CC to post more recent 990s and audits so that others can evaluate for ourselves? If CC published a rehabilitation plan, that would be helpful too. Thanks, Pine On Feb 13, 2015 10:29 PM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: I guess I am in as good a place as any to try to answer this question (and I'm speaking only for myself, here). I think only the barest sliver of the organization needs to exist for the licenses to exist--that is, someone willing to carry on the name and core mission, even if the org can't itself pay anyone's salary to work on it full time. Much of the other work CC does is more resource-intensive, especially if it wants to take on the long-term issue of policy change, but let's say we're only concerned with the immediate scope of your question. For your particular concern to be addressed, someone needs to be willing to undertake needed maintenance of some canonical version of the licenses. The vast majority of the time, this means simply keeping the servers running so that they remain accessible; on rare and what I hope are increasingly infrequent occasions, it means revision of the license suite. (I have joked that I will be happy to consult on the 5.0 revision from my retirement home.) The main resource this takes is time, from people with the necessary knowledge and commitment to do it. This rare process benefits from an organization that can support paying for full-time work on it, but does not strictly require it. So the organization and the licenses are tied together in that someone needs to be the license steward, but not necessarily the organization in its current form. (The real requirement is that the license steward have the trust of the license-using community, so that people will still use the CC licenses as stewarded by whoever does it. It is possible to have competing forks of the licenses and this is a bad idea for the same reason forks of many types of standards with network effects are a bad idea.) CC currently has seen better times--in an attempt to make its financial situation sustainable many staff were recently let go, which is why I am no longer there. But it is not yet down to bare bones, and I think there is a much greater likelihood that support would continue to exist for that bare bones work (and if I'm putting my speculative hat on, paths for such support could include getting taken under the wing of a law school, for example). tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see as a major concern. -Kat waving hello to the CC staff who lurk on this list... On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:34 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. On the subject of Creative Commons... How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately? How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and Creative Commons the licenses? Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses, what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
See also https://creativecommons.org/board , https://creativecommons.org/tag/ceo It's important to note that CC has dozens of independent national chapters (affiliates https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Category:Jurisdictions ), many of which are university centres/departments; some are rather big and do international work as well, like NEXA ( https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Italy ). It's impossible for them all to collapse at once; in case of fatal emergency, it would probably be comparatively easy to transition the barebone CC infrastructure (main trademarks and website) from one org to another. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
It appears to me from my surface-level review that there are some long-term finance and governance troubles at the main CC org. Now seems like a good time for WMF and other relevant orgs to develop a contingency plan in case the main CC org continues to have problems or ceases to be functional. I hope that the CC chapers have contingency plans, and I hope that we on this list will hear directly from WMF Legal that they are watching this situation carefully and are making appropriate plans based on what they learn. Thanks, Pine On Feb 15, 2015 12:40 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: See also https://creativecommons.org/board , https://creativecommons.org/ tag/ceo It's important to note that CC has dozens of independent national chapters (affiliates https://wiki.creativecommons. org/Category:Jurisdictions ), many of which are university centres/departments; some are rather big and do international work as well, like NEXA ( https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Italy ). It's impossible for them all to collapse at once; in case of fatal emergency, it would probably be comparatively easy to transition the barebone CC infrastructure (main trademarks and website) from one org to another. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see as a major concern. Is there something we can do as * Wikimedia movement? * Wikimedia Foundation? Aubrey ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
Hi. On the subject of Creative Commons... How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately? How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and Creative Commons the licenses? Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses, what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
Good questions. Their Board of Directors page contains long outdated information, the last Form 990 posted on their website is from tax year 2012 (!) suggests at first glance that they had some big financial problems that year, and the most recent audit that they posted is also for tax year 2012. Pine On Feb 13, 2015 9:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. On the subject of Creative Commons... How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately? How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and Creative Commons the licenses? Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses, what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
Yeah, it seems like they have the deed in a bunch of languages now but the actual full license is officially only in En,no and fi ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#languages ) James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: According to the footer at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ CC-BY-SA 4.0 is currently available in 34 languages/language variants: Castellano http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.es Castellano (España) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.es_ES Català http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ca Dansk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.da Deutsch http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de English http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en Esperanto http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.eo français http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.frGalego http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.gl hrvatski http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.hr Indonesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.id Italiano http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.it Latviski http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.lv Lietuvių http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.lt Magyar http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.hu Melayu http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ms Nederlands http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.nl Norsk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.no polski http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pl Português http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pt Português (BR) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pt_BR Suomeksi http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fi svenska http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.sv Türkçe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.tr íslenska http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.isčesky http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.cs Ελληνικά http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.el русский http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ru українська http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.uk العربية http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ar پارسی http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fa 日本語 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ja 華語 (台灣) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.zh_TW 한국어 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ko . Thanks, Mike On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:26, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion. Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :) [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages and a movement-wide discussion.] Luis On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com mailto: wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity with new content where possible. I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to deconflict licenses. Thanks, Pine On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi, Rupert- I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So Foundation content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759 .) WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has issued a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I understand the first few translations will be published in the next few weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2]. Realistically, given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
I guess I am in as good a place as any to try to answer this question (and I'm speaking only for myself, here). I think only the barest sliver of the organization needs to exist for the licenses to exist--that is, someone willing to carry on the name and core mission, even if the org can't itself pay anyone's salary to work on it full time. Much of the other work CC does is more resource-intensive, especially if it wants to take on the long-term issue of policy change, but let's say we're only concerned with the immediate scope of your question. For your particular concern to be addressed, someone needs to be willing to undertake needed maintenance of some canonical version of the licenses. The vast majority of the time, this means simply keeping the servers running so that they remain accessible; on rare and what I hope are increasingly infrequent occasions, it means revision of the license suite. (I have joked that I will be happy to consult on the 5.0 revision from my retirement home.) The main resource this takes is time, from people with the necessary knowledge and commitment to do it. This rare process benefits from an organization that can support paying for full-time work on it, but does not strictly require it. So the organization and the licenses are tied together in that someone needs to be the license steward, but not necessarily the organization in its current form. (The real requirement is that the license steward have the trust of the license-using community, so that people will still use the CC licenses as stewarded by whoever does it. It is possible to have competing forks of the licenses and this is a bad idea for the same reason forks of many types of standards with network effects are a bad idea.) CC currently has seen better times--in an attempt to make its financial situation sustainable many staff were recently let go, which is why I am no longer there. But it is not yet down to bare bones, and I think there is a much greater likelihood that support would continue to exist for that bare bones work (and if I'm putting my speculative hat on, paths for such support could include getting taken under the wing of a law school, for example). tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see as a major concern. -Kat waving hello to the CC staff who lurk on this list... On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:34 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. On the subject of Creative Commons... How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately? How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and Creative Commons the licenses? Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses, what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:05 PM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote: Yeah, it seems like they have the deed in a bunch of languages now but the actual full license is officially only in En,no and fi ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#languages ) James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur errr... for the record I'm not sure why this sent now... it was written before Kat had said this exact same thing... James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
According to the footer at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ CC-BY-SA 4.0 is currently available in 34 languages/language variants: Castellano http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.es Castellano (España) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.es_ES Català http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ca Dansk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.da Deutsch http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de English http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en Esperanto http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.eo français http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.frGalego http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.gl hrvatski http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.hr Indonesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.id Italiano http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.it Latviski http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.lv Lietuvių http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.lt Magyar http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.hu Melayu http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ms Nederlands http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.nl Norsk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.no polski http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pl Português http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pt Português (BR) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pt_BR Suomeksi http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fi svenska http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.sv Türkçe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.tr íslenska http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.isčesky http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.cs Ελληνικά http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.el русский http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ru українська http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.uk العربية http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ar پارسی http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fa 日本語 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ja 華語 (台灣) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.zh_TW 한국어 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.ko . Thanks, Mike On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:26, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion. Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :) [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages and a movement-wide discussion.] Luis On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com mailto:wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity with new content where possible. I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to deconflict licenses. Thanks, Pine On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi, Rupert- I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So Foundation content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759 .) WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has issued a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I understand the first few translations will be published in the next few weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2]. Realistically, given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that discussion will happen early in 2015. Hope that helps- Luis [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't want it to get worse. :) [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may not be up-to-date/accurate. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the newest commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
According to the footer at:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
CC-BY-SA 4.0 is currently available in 34 languages/language variants: [...]
This is just the deeds, not the license text itself.
-Kat
Thanks,
Mike
On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:26, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)
[To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
*acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
and a movement-wide discussion.]
Luis
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com
mailto:wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
with new content where possible.
I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
deconflict licenses.
Thanks,
Pine
On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, Rupert-
I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
Foundation
content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759
.)
WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
issued
a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2].
Realistically,
given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
discussion will happen early in 2015.
Hope that helps-
Luis
[1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
want it to get worse. :)
[2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
not be up-to-date/accurate.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
newest
commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
Rupert
On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Good point. That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Practical question:
The template:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
}}
instead)
Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
(including all translations)
Romaine
2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
Greetings
Ting
Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
Hi folks,
I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
on
Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
by
Wikimedia}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[1]
templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
[2]
and
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0[3]
templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg[4] and the
Community
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
[5]
logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing[6], that
may
need
to
be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
Thanks,
Yana
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
[4]
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)
There are only two official translations of the 4.0 suite currently
(Norwegian and Finnish), with another ready to publish fairly soon,
maybe 10 or so others in progress. (I note that I'm not there anymore,
though, and can't speak to how things will go forward.)
-Kat
[To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
*acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
and a movement-wide discussion.]
Luis
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
with new content where possible.
I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
deconflict licenses.
Thanks,
Pine
On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, Rupert-
I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
Foundation
content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759
.)
WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
issued
a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2].
Realistically,
given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
discussion will happen early in 2015.
Hope that helps-
Luis
[1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
want it to get worse. :)
[2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
not be up-to-date/accurate.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
newest
commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
Rupert
On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Good point. That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Practical question:
The template:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
}}
instead)
Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
(including all translations)
Romaine
2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
Greetings
Ting
Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
Hi folks,
I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
on
Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
by
Wikimedia}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[1]
templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
[2]
and
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0[3]
templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg[4] and the
Community
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
[5]
logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing[6], that
may
need
to
be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
Thanks,
Yana
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)
[To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
*acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
and a movement-wide discussion.]
Luis
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
with new content where possible.
I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
deconflict licenses.
Thanks,
Pine
On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, Rupert-
I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
Foundation
content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759
.)
WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
issued
a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2].
Realistically,
given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
discussion will happen early in 2015.
Hope that helps-
Luis
[1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
want it to get worse. :)
[2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
not be up-to-date/accurate.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
newest
commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
Rupert
On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Good point. That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Practical question:
The template:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
}}
instead)
Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
(including all translations)
Romaine
2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
Greetings
Ting
Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
Hi folks,
I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
on
Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
by
Wikimedia}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[1]
templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
[2]
and
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0[3]
templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg[4] and the
Community
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
[5]
logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing[6], that
may
need
to
be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
Thanks,
Yana
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
[4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg
[5]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
[6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
___
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
Pine W, 10/02/2015 10:13: in order to maintain continuity with new content What? Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos
Hi, Rupert-
I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So Foundation
content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759
.)
WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has issued
a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2].
Realistically,
given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
discussion will happen early in 2015.
Hope that helps-
Luis
[1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
want it to get worse. :)
[2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
not be up-to-date/accurate.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the newest
commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
Rupert
On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good point. That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Practical question:
The template:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia}}
instead)
Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
(including all translations)
Romaine
2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
Greetings
Ting
Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
Hi folks,
I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on
Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright by
Wikimedia}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[1]
templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark[2]
and
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0[3]
templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg[4] and the
Community
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
[5]
logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing[6], that may
need
to
be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
Thanks,
Yana
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
[4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg
[5]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
[6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Yana Welinder
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
@yanatweets https://twitter.com/yanatweets
NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
