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
+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
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,
-
>
> 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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo