On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing" > section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both > text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial > use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the > project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by > including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain > intact without misappropriation, etc." > > The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full > awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that > resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list > archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere. > > Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's > called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a > policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3] > > I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English > Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for > English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English > Wikisource volunteers. > > To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to > demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current > policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate > for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating > an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that > implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a > compelling argument. > > Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument. > > -Pete > -- > Pete Forsyth > Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata, > Commons, and Meta Wiki. > > [1] > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation > ? > [2] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy > [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy > > > > One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a different starting policy foundation? _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
