Re: [Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files

[Petr Kadlec]

2009/8/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
 GFDL licensed images are still perfectly usable in freely licensed
 reference works, in spite of the  inconveniences in the license.

I am not sure what you mean, exactly. Do you consider GFDL to be
“strong copyleft”, i.e. that the viral clause applies to the text
surrounding a GFDL image? In that case, I don’t see where the “freely
licensed reference works” come from (GFDL does not talk about “freely
licensed”, only “under precisely this License”), and in that case,
CC-BY-SA-only Wikipedia articles would not be allowed to use GFDL-only
images. (In a similar way, GFDL-only Wikipedia articles of a recent
past would probably not have been allowed to use CC-only licensed
images.)

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT

[wp99 -----]

Hi, currently, I participate a process to translate Wikipedia:What
Wikipedia is not and import that to JaWp. Since WP:NOT is a Global
Principle according to the right box of the page, I naturally insist
to import this document as it is without modifications, at least
without major modifications for basic key concepts such as
Wikipedia:Consensus.

In a final phase to fix the final translated version, a user appeared
and claimed that he cannot agree to apply WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to JaWp, since it's not properly to reflect the
current JaWp manner, etc.(dunno what exactly he intends to mean, but
the bottom line is he doesn't agree to import these 2 sections of
WP:NOT).

Obviously, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY includes a
significant Wp Global Principe - Wikipedia:Consensus, so I explained
him that WP:NOT is not a mere policies but a Global Princile including
singificant Wp concpet. Basically, he won't listen claiming JaWp is
somewhat independent of EnWp, and this discussion is still open in
JaWp.

Another user suggested me to ask an official statement from Wikimedia
Foundation, and I also think it would be better to clear how
internlingual cordination of Wikipedia Policy works.

So, is there anyone here who knows well about this topic, and could
you advise where to start to make this clear. Thank you.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l