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, we should start centralizing that non-free material locally uploaded since it's already there. I would like logos of Universities and coat of arms of public administration and doubtful old images that according to some platforms are free but for Commons are not (gray areas), to be on a NC part of Commons, or a dedicated platform (i always link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki_(2). it's just more rational. If we did so, we could start from there and see where it goes. We will have a list of established exceptions (that we accept already, just locally), we can add few more ones. it's not a definitive solution, it's a process that we should face together. I think specifically we should accept NC if it's better than what it is currently available from the uploader. For example if an artist give us a reproduction of its artwork in NC for Wikipedia, is it still better than nothing? Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did not provide such options? We probbaly all suspect it's the max we can can get to the world in that scenario. This approach for example will not apply to the case of WHO, in their case is not a clear improvement, so no upload. If you put a limited group of users in charge of that process, or some funnel step in the procedure, it will never be massive, but it might be targeted and useful, IMHO. Alex Il domenica 12 luglio 2020, 02:33:04 CEST, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> ha scritto: 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 to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us. James On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 disallow any such use. > > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy, > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default > license. > > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism. > > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to > want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it > can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about > altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now, > Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive > licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly > poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a > nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how > is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in > some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to > Wikimedia projects? > > If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the > free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms > strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be > short-sighted. > > Warmly, > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > 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> -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
