Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Hoi, Uploading material that is incompatible with our license, I would personally consider it a bad faith move. Only when it is considered that the inclusion of a GFDL file is similar to fair use within the context of a Wikipedia clone would it be acceptable. This however possibly negates the reason for uploading under the GFDL of the uploader. Commons was originally conceived as a shared repository for all WMF projects. When the WMF projects are not allowed to use material from Commons, it is definetly not the place to upload new incompatible material. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/4 Nemo_bis nemow...@gmail.com mizusumashi, 25/07/2009 16:54: Q1) All media files that have been licensed under the GFDL and allowed to relicense under CC-BY-SA were relicensed by [[wmf:Resolution:Licensing update approval]]? Yes, all GFDL 1.2 and later. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GFDL_1.3_relicensing_criteria Q2) Now, I know, we can't import text licensed under not CC-BY-SA but only GFDL. How about media files? Can I upload a media file licensed under not CC-BY-SA but only GFDL? It depends on communities. The only WMF policy is still http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy Nemo ___ 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] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Hello, Wikimedia prefers material under a CC license but it will stay possible to upload gfdl only material. But whenever its possible try to upload it under a cc-by license or a dual license. Best regards, Huib -- Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Felipe Ortega, 25/07/2009 18:06: * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level. But I often see that even an old, quiescent page is completely re-written or significantly improved by an expert (of the matter and often of wiki too) user (often FA regulars) to reach Featured article status, and it reaches it in some weeks at most. * Most of editors contributing to FAs were high experienced editors, meaning more than 2.5 or 3 years participating in Wikipedia. I read your thesis entirely, and I have a big concern: you consider only number of edits. An admin can edit dozen of thousands of articles reverting vandalisms, and histories are full of huge vandalism-revert series which are history-noise because that's not where the article was improved or acually evolved. You can often see articles created (or significantly expanded) with a single edit followed by dozens or even hunderds of minor edits and vandalism-reverts. Then, we should rather consider, as authors of articles, users who added it more text; or better, users who added more of the text which is still there (like in wikitrust). Moreover, FA are only a minority of articles and do not measure the quality of the wiki. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are compatible does not make them compatible. The fact that it is unlikely that WE get into problems, does not justify the continued practice of accepting GFDL only material when our reusers might. Thanks, GerardM Commons accepts materials that are free according to http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's no reason to stop doing it. Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Hoi, Please note that I only call for no more new uploads of GFDL material. Also my main argument is ignored; the ability and surety that such documents can be legally used by our downstream users of our content. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/4 Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are compatible does not make them compatible. The fact that it is unlikely that WE get into problems, does not justify the continued practice of accepting GFDL only material when our reusers might. Thanks, GerardM Commons accepts materials that are free according to http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's no reason to stop doing it. Cruccone ___ 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] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Marco Chiesa wrote: Commons accepts materials that are free according to http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's no reason to stop doing it. In terms of our policy, I agree with this. That being said, for anyone deciding what license to choose when contributing to Wikimedia Commons - I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] List moderation (was, Re: Stevertigo)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Starling wrote: I wrote: I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread. I also asked him to not make me immediately regret my decision, and to let this thing with Austin drop. I repeated this request in a second private email when he started posting in this thread, and he has ignored it. Cary has contacted me expressing an interest in adjudicating this case, and he is the relevant authority on this kind of thing. Thus I have put Stevertigo back on moderation pending his decision. -- Tim Starling I'm allowing Austin, as active list moderator, to work this out with Stevertigo, who can contact Austin directly or work things out with me. That being said, since Micheal Bimmler's retirement, and the fact that I'm not certain of Ral315's list moderation activity level; I leave the question with Austin, do you want someone to volunteer to help out with moderation? - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkp4Z2QACgkQyQg4JSymDYl1cQCfQgf4lvFh3bM6oVG83AlnWcDt TecAoKhb3SaMUg8AlzckB+K0utyQZ7J2 =JjcP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] List moderation (was, Re: Stevertigo)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Cary Bass wrote: Tim Starling wrote: I wrote: I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread. I also asked him to not make me immediately regret my decision, and to let this thing with Austin drop. I repeated this request in a second private email when he started posting in this thread, and he has ignored it. Cary has contacted me expressing an interest in adjudicating this case, and he is the relevant authority on this kind of thing. Thus I have put Stevertigo back on moderation pending his decision. -- Tim Starling I'm allowing Austin, as active list moderator, to work this out with Stevertigo, who can contact Austin directly or work things out with me. I want to rephrase my unfortunate choice of words for clarification. I'm allowing... means, I'm not going to step in and decide for the moderator who is perfectly capable of making these decisions on his own. Anyone who is on moderation is perfectly welcome to contact me, however, I'll only serve as an intermediary between him/her and the list moderator. Ultimately, the public (and most of the private) lists are run by volunteers, who don't need my help or advice to run them. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkp4auwACgkQyQg4JSymDYmeGwCg22OoPMCGlsMjuGgmYAP5n5IL ltgAoI9kOqzQZ6PSd//fLTX9m1YKjve1 =jh+V -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote: [snip] I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful. Because, unfortunately, representatives of Creative Commons have asserted that CC-By-Sa licensed media can integrated as a whole integrated into non-free works, producing a result which is not freely licensed. In other words— that the cc-by-sa copyleft is nearly moot in the context of images since they tend to be either incorporated verbatim or subject to only trivial non-copyright deserving modifications even when the the resulting work as a whole clearly builds upon the illustration and isn't merely a collection of separate things. The license text itself appears to be reasonably explicit on this matter— but I feel it would be unethical to use CC-By-SA when doing so would cause me to end up litigating against people who were merely following, in good faith, what they believe to be authoritative advice. GFDL licensed images are still perfectly usable in freely licensed reference works, in spite of the inconveniences in the license. It's unfortunate that there doesn't currently exist an unclouded copyleft license which is well suited for photographs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote: [snip] I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful. Because, unfortunately, representatives of Creative Commons have asserted that CC-By-Sa licensed media can integrated as a whole integrated into non-free works, producing a result which is not freely licensed. In other words— that the cc-by-sa copyleft is nearly moot in the context of images since they tend to be either incorporated verbatim or subject to only trivial non-copyright deserving modifications even when the the resulting work as a whole clearly builds upon the illustration and isn't merely a collection of separate things. The license text itself appears to be reasonably explicit on this matter— but I feel it would be unethical to use CC-By-SA when doing so would cause me to end up litigating against people who were merely following, in good faith, what they believe to be authoritative advice. I don't think I'd be so quick to blame Creative Commons for this, regardless of the advice they've given. It seems like most people reusing copyleft materials in good faith do so without fully understanding the concept, advice or no advice. I've seen plenty of GFDL material combined with other works in this way as well, even when as you say, the whole clearly builds upon the original rather than being a collection of works that can stand independently. It's a bad practice and a major educational challenge for free licenses, but I don't find it that closely related to the issue of choosing a free license in the first place. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Michael Snow wrote: Marco Chiesa wrote: Commons accepts materials that are free according to http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's no reason to stop doing it. In terms of our policy, I agree with this. That being said, for anyone deciding what license to choose when contributing to Wikimedia Commons - I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful. While I completely agree with you, the situation is somewhat different if you are downloading a work that has been previously published under GFDL. Then the decision is not whether to choose the GFDL license, but the decision is whether to download. I suggest the decision should be to download. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Michael Snow wrote: Marco Chiesa wrote: Commons accepts materials that are free according to http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's no reason to stop doing it. In terms of our policy, I agree with this. That being said, for anyone deciding what license to choose when contributing to Wikimedia Commons - I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when applied to radically different contexts it will still be free in the dogmatic sense, but it may no longer be all that useful. While I completely agree with you, the situation is somewhat different if you are downloading a work that has been previously published under GFDL. Then the decision is not whether to choose the GFDL license, but the decision is whether to download. I suggest the decision should be to download. Right, that's why I focused my comments on people who are in a position to choose the license. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
