Re: [Foundation-l] Open Knowledge Foundation
They have Benjamin Mako Hill in their advisory board, who is also in the WMF AB. Other then that, I see nothing familiar. Best regards, Lodewijk 2009/1/26 Lennart Guldbrandsson wikihanni...@gmail.com Hello, I was recently made aware of this organization: http://www.okfn.org/ with their blog at http://blog.okfn.org/ Have any of you had anything to do with them? Best wishes, Lennart -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för svenskspråkiga Wikipedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
David Gerard wrote: 2009/1/24 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com: I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author list. If you take out the subthreads of Anthony trolling and being fed with responses, you'll see there's much less to this thread than it seems at first glance. - d. I think you are precisely inaccurate on this point. Quite the contrary. I seriously feel that the part where Anthony is taking on all comers, is masking the fact that there is a serious shift underway in the way WMF is operating. WMF used to really be a (choose a heavy-weight designation) pound gorilla in the GFDL users pool. When we transition to the Creative Commons universe, we will never again regain that status, and a combative stance will do us no favors. So at the very minimum, it would well serve us to know what the established standards are within CC-BY-SA, in particular focusing on the BY part. Yours faithfully, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund
Over here http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors/De#Major_benefactors_.28.2450.2C000_or_more.29 ...the Wikimedia Foundation gives credit to the Stanton Foundation. It's my learning that the Stanton Foundation is a small non-profit located in Jackon, Michigan. However, The Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund is a large foundation (about $28 million in holdings, in 2007) that has made the high-profile donations in the past that are associated with the legacy of CBS head, Frank Stanton. There are other places on the web where it seems that the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund has been described as the Stanton Foundation, namely surrounding their $3 million donation to a Boston animal shelter. Does anybody have a good explanation for what is happening here? Is the Fund being miscalled as a Foundation, and it's just a simple mistake? Or, has the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund split off or reorganized at some point since their 2007 filing of the Form 990, as the Stanton Foundation? -- Gregory Kohs ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: WMF used to really be a (choose a heavy-weight designation) pound gorilla in the GFDL users pool. When we transition to the Creative Commons universe, we will never again regain that status, and a combative stance will do us no favors. I think gaging the relative status of Wikimedia projects in the GFDL and CC-BY-SA universes by the size alone is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Wikipedia might be the only GFDL project most people could name, but in that universe the needs of GNU software manuals carry a lot of weight. The CC-BY-SA universe is much bigger and more diverse, but Wikimedia projects would be the single most influential player (in many senses already have been for years), in what I'm certain will be a very symbiotic relationship, including the parts where some members of the community take combative stances. So at the very minimum, it would well serve us to know what the established standards are within CC-BY-SA, in particular focusing on the BY part. As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is highly medium specific. Personally, I think the guidelines Erik has mooted are very much in line with what CC-BY-SA enables and the wiki medium, but there's no better group than this (meaning Wikimedia projects collectively, if not just foundation-l) to improve on these if needed. And back to the weight of Wikimedia projects within and symbiotic relationship with the CC-BY-SA universe, if there's anything that can be done to clarify or otherwise improve license support for attribution in massively collaborative projects, I fully expect input from Wikimedia communities/projects/staff to be the most important input into shaping such improvements in any eventual versioning of CC-BY-SA. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Open Knowledge Foundation
OKFN hosted an open-textbooks meeting on IRC a while back. I attended, and I think one or two other Wikibookians attended as well. I haven't had any contact with them since, but I've wanted to either host or join another similar meeting with them in the future. --Andrew Whitworth On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wikihanni...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I was recently made aware of this organization: http://www.okfn.org/ with their blog at http://blog.okfn.org/ Have any of you had anything to do with them? Best wishes, Lennart -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för svenskspråkiga Wikipedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Mike Linksvayer wrote: On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: So at the very minimum, it would well serve us to know what the established standards are within CC-BY-SA, in particular focusing on the BY part. As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is highly medium specific. That has been expressed as a preference for pragmatic reasons. I don't think anyone has in fact been talking about what the current practices are in this respect in differing media in the Creative Commons world as things stand, before WMF transitioning there. There may have been very thin mentions of other parts of WMF than wikipedia which have been Creative Commons from the git-go. However, if what you say happens to in fact be correct (never mind if it has been previously covered in these threads or not), that would be quite significant, in particular in those jurisdictions where moral rights are defined in law. At least one legal out for the absolute paternity right to a work here in Finland, is the part that the form of attribution should accord with common methods of the field, and good manners. There is case-law on this. (KKO 1992:63 (Kalevala Koru)) was a decision that a jeweler did not have to include the name of the designer with the packaging of each individual piece of jewelery sold, as long as the designer was credited in a more general fashion, with the sales material etc. sent to the stores in relation to the works. In that decision it was considered that the standard of that particular field was that the name of the artist who designed the jewelery was affixed to each piece of jewelery if the artist happened to have sufficient name recognition, but not otherwise. Personally, I think the guidelines Erik has mooted are very much in line with what CC-BY-SA enables and the wiki medium, but there's no better group than this (meaning Wikimedia projects collectively, if not just foundation-l) to improve on these if needed. Equally personally, I think Erik's first suggestions were borderline legally defensible, in the sense that an argument could be framed around it, though not necessarily one that is a slam-dunk to prevail on, nor remotely a strongly persuasive one. That said, my personal view on what is the right thing to do about attribution is far more nuanced than a merely legalistic one. But I won't revisit or develop it publicly at this point. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
