Hoi,
When the CIA or any other American governmental organisation has something
to share that is of benefit to us, we should be gracious and thankful and
accept and reflect what boon we have been given. Recently we accepted some
advice from Apple. The people around the UNICEF usability extensions h
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/23 Erik Moeller :
> > 2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
> >> Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How
> >> did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in
> >> Wikia's offices were worth the extra
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Its the same software for both parties, and its open source. Please just
> drop it.
>
If you would please be so kind as to summarize your viewpoints in
fewer messages. The past 10 to this thread have all been by you.
-Chad
_
Its the same software for both parties, and its open source. Please just drop
it.
From: Anthony
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:41:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
On Fri, Jan 23, 200
Beating on a dead horse is not a valid point.
From: George Herbert
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:47:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Kelle
With a move you have several costs. The rent is only a small part. Travel is
another factor. If rewiring is needed, it will cost even more. All these costs
add up to make a real price.
From: Thomas Dalton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday,
Mr. Levy;
I respectfully believe that you are asking the wrong question. Rent is only a
small part of cost. The whole cost should have been the arbiter in this matter,
and I suspect it was from the posts by personnel.
From: David Levy
To: foundation-l@lists
Mr. Mingus;
Wikia and wikimedia do the same thing for different reasons. It makes no sense
to stovepipe development teams when collaboration (wiki's bread and butter) is
in progress. Its a symbiotic relationship and good business in my humble
opinion.
From:
Mr Kohs;
You are beating on a dead horse. Mr. Vibber has brought forth a list of
perfectly valid reasons why this space was taken. LET ME REITERATE THE COST OF
REWIRING/RECONFIGURING SPACE IN CALIFORNIA. Why should a taco stand use a dry
cleaning shop when it can get another taco shop?
_
Brion;
Thank you for your enlightened perspective on how the sticker price isn't the
only cost.
From: Brion Vibber
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:08:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Wikia is a way to utilize MediaWiki for profit. The United States is a
capitalist society, and this should be encouraged. Also Wikia hosts many
fansites and I don't hear them complaining about people playing ball.
From: Brian
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
Press contacts take note. Please enlighten any reporters with a basic primer in
common sense.
From: Michael Bimmler
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:53:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Mr Kohs;
Some of your points have merit as there are many areas in which we can and
should improve. However, I must respectfully note that your comments here serve
only to divide a already fractured community even further. As a Californian, I
disagree with your assertions of nepotism and favori
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:07 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/24 Sue Gardner :
> > I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope
> > the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably
> > reassuring :-)
>
> Depends. The wikia is a large user therefor we should work wit
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard > >wrote:
> >
> > > Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the
> > > biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/24 Anthony :
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard >wrote:
> >
> >> Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the
> >> biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion,
> >> probably the best incentive t
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is
> saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors
> distinct from copyright owners etc.
>
If you look at the context in which I used the t
2009/1/24 Sue Gardner :
> I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope
> the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably
> reassuring :-)
Depends. The wikia is a large user therefor we should work with them
argument is somewhat worrying because well we know
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard >wrote:
>
> > Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the
> > biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion,
> > probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develop
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/1/24 Anthony :
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
My reply isn't specific to what Thomas wrote; this is a general
comment on this thread. I've been reading it with a lot of interest,
and there are a couple of things I'd like to add to what'
2009/1/24 Anthony :
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
>
>> Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the
>> biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion,
>> probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a
>> way that makes sense for
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the
> biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion,
> probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a
> way that makes sense for the users.
And what bette
2009/1/24 Michael Snow :
> Delphine Ménard wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:35, Brian wrote:
>>
>>> I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia
>>> relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense,
>>> except the $$$ kind.
>>>
>> Yes, as I point
Delphine Ménard wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:35, Brian wrote:
>
>> I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia
>> relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense,
>> except the $$$ kind.
>>
> Yes, as I pointed out, I am the first to
Mensaje citado por foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, sen
George Herbert writes:
> There was a slight danger in the Foundation chosing to hire Mike as
> counsel,
> that he has a long-established tendency to poke fun at people ( cf.
> Godwin's
> Law, and more long painful Usenet discussions from 20 plus years ago
> than I
> care to remember at the
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:35, Brian wrote:
> This time next year I have no doubt Wikipedia will be much more usable.
> Delphine, this sentence is the first time I have ever typed the word
> 'cabal'.
:D
To be fair, I didn't so mean the word cabal for your intervention as
for other interventions
This time next year I have no doubt Wikipedia will be much more usable.
Delphine, this sentence is the first time I have ever typed the word
'cabal'.
I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia
relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense,
excep
2009/1/23 George Herbert :
> This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it,
> is it not? And not philosophy writ large?
It was, I think we drifted a little off-topic.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
>> Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How
>> did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in
>> Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept
>> that there could be a good expla
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:53, Brian wrote:
> I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of
> "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit
> branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at
> nearly every level of t
2009/1/23 Gerard Meijssen
>
>
> The natural state of these discussions is that there are always people
> pissing in the wind. That spoils things somewhat.
>
Hear hear, true words in a typical Dutch wording. :-)
I am amazed about the transparency and openess the staff members are giving
here, and
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
> Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How
> did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in
> Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept
> that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
>>. Did you consider the PR cost when weighing it all up?
>
> Of course. It's a normal transaction and any noise about it is likely
> going to be ephemeral. We will continue to calmly and sensibly explain
> it to reasonable people, and that's all
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
> > concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
> > point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of
> > "the world outside the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Brian wrote:
>Quit calling us
> trolls, crackpots and kooks and simply address the matters in a factual way.
Here's a suggestion for everyone: Stop the allusions to conspiracies
("tax-deductible money shifted to for-profit companies") *and* stop
the name-calling
Delirium wrote:
> Most people, however, neither know the board nor have any particularly
> great knowledge of Wikimedia's internals. Were it any other
> organization, as in my Sierra Club example, I wouldn't believe the
> explanation, so I wouldn't blame non-Wikimedians who read about this in
>
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
>. Did you consider the PR cost when weighing it all up?
Of course. It's a normal transaction and any noise about it is likely
going to be ephemeral. We will continue to calmly and sensibly explain
it to reasonable people, and that's all there is to it.
--
Erik Möller
De
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> George Herbert writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
>
>>> Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger
>>> setting.
>
>> I respectfully request that you review it and reco
I find it interesting that critics of the Foundation are necessarily either
a troll, crackpot or kook, and yet, by my estimation, each one of these
critics has been around longer than the Foundation and wishes to make sure
that it develops in a manner consistent with the much older philosophy
surro
Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> Delirium writes:
>
>> Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
>>> Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum
>>> at this list
>> In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that
>> even appearance of impropriety, even where none exists
George Herbert writes:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
>> Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger
>> setting.
> I respectfully request that you review it and reconsider.
Request denied. I stand by what I said, and you can be polite
Delirium writes:
> Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
>> Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum
>> at this list?
> In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that
> even appearance of impropriety, even where none exists, is damaging
> to nonprofit organi
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> George Herbert writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller
> wrote:
>
> >> Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum
> >> at this list?
>
> > I'm somewhat confused - Delirium's comme
2009/1/23 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> Having an office close to the main office, having an environment that is
> shared with colleagues who way are sharing their impressive usability
> improvements are tangible benefits.
I agree, the issue is with how much you value them. They definitely
have a val
Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> Delirium writes:
>
>> There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to
>> avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect,
>> and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
>
> Could you please keep the amoun
Hoi,
Having an office close to the main office, having an environment that is
shared with colleagues who way are sharing their impressive usability
improvements are tangible benefits. The cost of the office space conforms to
market rates.
The natural state of these discussions is that there are al
George Herbert writes:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
>> Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum
>> at this list?
> I'm somewhat confused - Delirium's comment here is reasonable,
> accurate, and a legitimate concern, as opposed to so
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> Delirium writes:
>
> > There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to
> > avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect,
> > and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Delirium writes:
> There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to
> avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect,
> and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I know that Wikia/WMF related stuff is pretty exciting, but really, we
> have work to do. We're not going to not make a decision that is right
> just because it creates fodder for trolling. (And I hope that if this
> turns into a troll-fest, the list moderators will take appro
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/23 David Levy :
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> * We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
>>> the other options we obtained;
>>> * After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
>>> of the space against o
2009/1/23 David Levy :
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> * We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
>> the other options we obtained;
>> * After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
>> of the space against other options, we decided to go with
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth
wrote:
>> As for Master Bimmler's concerns about the "fear" imposed by mention
>> of the media watching, it's only natural for someone who has recently
>> and historically been censored for asking pertinent questions, to want
>> some sort of "bac
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller :
> * We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
> the other options we obtained;
Average, or cheapest? If it really was average, then you're going to
have need to justify precisely how the added bonuses from Wikia are
worth whatever the difference w
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a
> leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular
> with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly
> Stanton-funded developers? L
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
> I'm curious, how did that happen exactly? You didn't get the office
> that long ago and most of the recent hires have been planned a fair
> amount of time in advance.
Growth can be unpredictable for a number of reasons - changing
assumptions about capacity needs, revenu
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
> * We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
> the other options we obtained;
> * After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
> of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia;
To clarify, did Wikia ma
The issue is pretty plain and simple:
* Our Office Manager explored several options, including Wikia;
* We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
* After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of the space against othe
Nathan wrote:
> Out of curiosity, will the cost of leasing the space be deducted from the
> usability grant funds?
>
Normal overhead costs were budgeted into the grant from the beginning.
That's one of the reasons we're not using it to hire 30 developers at
$30,000 a year, but setting more rea
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a
> leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular
> with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly
> Stanton-funded developers?
A
I do not assume bad faith - by assuming I assume bad faith you are assuming
bad faith.
Your close critics are often your best friends. So long as they aren't
threatening legal action or forwarding their criticisms to the press, they
are forcing you to introspect and determine whether there really
> "Wikia has been doing intensive work on the usability front and making
> the code available to public, so I look forward to collaborating with
> the Wikia technical and product teams to exchange ideas and learn from
> their work."
>
> There is a certain amount of logic in working with one of the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Brian wrote:
> I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of
> "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit
> branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at
> nearly every level
Out of curiosity, will the cost of leasing the space be deducted from the
usability grant funds?
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> (We'd much rather keep them *in* our main office, but we're
> simply out of room!)
I'm curious, how did that happen exactly? You didn't get the office
that long ago and most of the recent hires have been planned a fair
amount of time in advance. Why did you get a bigger office to start
with?
__
The Foundation was searching for rooms because the current rooms are
already quite crowded (everyone who had visited the office can confirm
this) and because we will start the usability project we are going to
hire three more developers.
Thus the Foundation has either to lease offices in the vi
On 1/23/09 11:49 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best
>> offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to
>> match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer"
>> basis, rather than
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still
> not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being
> ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the
> list moderators
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of
"they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit
branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at
nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
On Fri, Jan 23, 200
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> I'll also advise the
> list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Thanks for the heads-up, now I'm frightened...
Seriously, I have nothing against you raising these questions, but
sentences like the above won'
> Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best
> offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to
> match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer"
> basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted th
I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura,
the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative,
funded by the Stanton Foundation.
Post:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initiative/
To quote Komura,
"On the
Michael Bimmler writes:
> Please Stop It.
Sure, Michael.
I confess it sometimes amuses me to argue with trolls, but I have no
interest in continuing to argue publicly when it ceases to amuse
anyone else but me.
My apologies. I'll try to keep things more in hand in the future.
--Mike
_
All this comparing, ahem, brain sizes is very interesting - but ultimately
not useful, and detrimental to the ideal tone and purpose of this list.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.
Anthony writes:
> Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike.
> Your last
> paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
Thanks. But surely you don't expect me to tutor you on "moral rights"
jurisprudence when the materials you need are widely available
elsewhere
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
>> anyone, but I promise I have it!
>
> Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
> something isn't recognised by the law doesn't mean it isn't recognised
> by anyone.
So you re
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
>
>> A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
>> their context in Wikipedia.
>
> Apropos of which, a thought. We have spilled a good bit of ink over
> whether or not it is appropriate for the reuser to attribute
> "Wikipedia users"
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller :
> A single URL could point to a list of all contributors for all
> articles.
Not under your proposal "attribution via reference to page histories
is acceptable if there are more than five authors."
> I do agree with you, Mike and others who have pointed out that we want
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
>>> concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
>>> That said, the GFDL requires authors to be listed in "the section
>>> entitled
>>> History", and it clearly states that a "section "Entitled XYZ" means
>>> a named
>>> subunit of the Document..."
>>>
>> So is cu
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
>> concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
>> point out where they are used mistakenly.
>
>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
> concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
> point out where they are used mistakenly.
You have a moral obligation? I thought you dismissed mora
Hoi,
Lars, you are talking about Nynorsk and I am talking about Estonian.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/23 Lars Aronsson
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When we were to move away from a set of URL's from et to ekk, a
> > generic redirect from et to ekk will suffice because there will
> > be a one
2009/1/23 Lars Aronsson
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When we were to move away from a set of URL's from et to ekk, a
> > generic redirect from et to ekk will suffice because there will
> > be a one on one relation. The et named articles will never be
> > used for anything else. This is true bec
> I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
> concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
> point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of
> "the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a
> member of the l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> When we were to move away from a set of URL's from et to ekk, a
> generic redirect from et to ekk will suffice because there will
> be a one on one relation. The et named articles will never be
> used for anything else. This is true because this is how the
> standard w
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the
>> absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't
>> have any.
>> [snip]
>
> There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn
> that, or restrict the recipients of your e
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
> > Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not
> > have it.
>
> I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
> anyone, but I promise I have it!
>
Why would you call it *my* house,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
> If you are in a
> > jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV)
> > you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't
> > enforce them.
>
> A more nuanced and accurate view
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin :
>> Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not
>> have it.
>
> I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
> anyone, but I promise I have it!
Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
something isn't r
Anthony writes:
>> Anthony writes:
>>> Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
>>> right
>>> to attribution.
>>
>> Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
>>
>
> Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin :
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>>> This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
>>> right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
>>> rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
>>> does not recognize "moral righ
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
> > I think it is useful to note that even in countries where
> > moral rights are inalienable, there is a requirement of
> > "originality" and "creative effort".
>
>
> It is n
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
>> right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
>> rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
>> does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them,
Lars Aronsson hett schreven:
> I'm not talking about dialects or legal standing. I'm talking
> about renaming thousands of URLs, breaking incoming links from
> other websites, for no good reason.
After a rename the old link will stay as a redirect and won't change for
a long time (at least sev
Hoi,
When we were to move away from a set of URL's from et to ekk, a generic
redirect from et to ekk will suffice because there will be a one on one
relation. The et named articles will never be used for anything else. This
is true because this is how the standard works.
For those wikis where the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Kjetil Lenes wrote:
>
> > If you consider Norwegian nynorsk to be a dialect, you have your
> > facts wrong. It is one of two written forms of norwegian, they
> > have the same legal standing.
>
> I'm not talking about dialects or legal stand
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/23 Mike Godwin :
> > Anthony writes:
> >
> >> A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
> >
> > This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
> > right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to
Kjetil Lenes wrote:
> If you consider Norwegian nynorsk to be a dialect, you have your
> facts wrong. It is one of two written forms of norwegian, they
> have the same legal standing.
I'm not talking about dialects or legal standing. I'm talking
about renaming thousands of URLs, breaking incom
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
