On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 June 2014 23:17, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine > by > > me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the "free knowledge" > > aspect of our vision & mission statements might be a little tough to > > persuade, but if you want to try, have at it. > > > The more querulous Commons admins are treating "this is not provably > 100% URAA safe" as equivalent to fair-use free-for-all, often seguing > between the two in the same email. This is equivocation of a > particularly unhelpful sort. Speaking as an unreconstructed > Stallmanite, I say "what on earth." > David, I'm not sure how your message is supposed to connect to mine? * I'm not an admin on Commons, not sure if you intended to lump me in there * I have no position on URAA and don't think it's particularly germane to this topic My comments in this thread have, I think quite clearly and consistently, been in response to George's proposal of "Uncommons," a site which would host copyright materials for the purpose of fair use. URAA files would not be a particularly interesting subset of the copyrighted files that could live on such a site (or, for that matter, on Flickr etc, in the absence of a DMCA complaint from a rights-holder.) So -- who was this addressed to, if not me? What did my message have to do with URAA, or with querulous admins? Pete _______________________________________________ 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>
