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

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

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,

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

2020-08-08 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
- > > 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;

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

2020-08-08 Thread WereSpielChequers
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: [Wiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2020-07-12 Thread WereSpielChequers
n 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: > zv8xsa4kfkngpbwrtymapcmpk

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

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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