Nathan writes:
>
> Interesting. Although the Italian media also reported that I (and
> Jimbo and various others) was being sued for 50 million euros, and I
> haven't seen that lawsuit yet.
>
We've had a lot of experience of spurious reports of lawsuits originating in
Italy. In the majority of tho
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Wednesday 16 September 2009 00:26:18 Cary Bass написа:
>> These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
>> your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
>> requirement even to cred
While I like the idea of bounties, this idea actually has merit. To make him
work, I would give him the amount of money for childcare as a down payment,
with the wages payable on delivery. Can someone from the Foundation look into
this? We have quite a few talented mooks, who might be able to ha
Дана Wednesday 16 September 2009 00:26:18 Cary Bass написа:
> These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
> your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
> requirement even to credit Wikimedia Commons.
Since restoring an image could include so
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Gregory Kohs
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500,
> give
> >> him server access, give him eight we
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
[snip]
> The key question is whether the full history dump was ever considered
> to be a project that needs WMF funding to be allocated, as opposed to
> letting it be solved by the normal open source model.
Post the root password to the dat
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>>
>> Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give
>> him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full
>> history dump of the English Wiki
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>
> Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give
> him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full
> history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be a
> one-year ba
So, let me just get this straight.
Someone here bemoaned the fact that a full history dump of the English
Wikipedia has been sought for 3 years, but is still forthcoming. That
person mentioned, factually, that $1.7 million of budgeted money for
"technology" was left unspent, with the suggestion t
That's not my read on it.
I read it as someone trying to make an issue where none exists. But
we've seen that before ...
Philippe
On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>
> If I have violated the rules or norms of this forum, I will be happy
> to suffer moderation as penance.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Recently, a participant on this list said, "I could really care less about
> what Sue has to say about the budget".
I do not care about the budget. I didn't read the budget, don't know
anything about it, and am not interested to learn more ab
Recently, a participant on this list said, "I could really care less about
what Sue has to say about the budget".
Didn't we have some sort of moderation plan, to give time-outs to people
when they step over a line into hostile, disparaging commentary that adds no
value to the Wikimedia Foundation
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:55:56 -0400, Anthony wrote:
> The WMF tremendously overestimated future hardware costs by making
horrible
> assumptions, which I pointed out on this very list. That depended
entirely
> on the WMF.
The 2007-2008 Wikimedia budget was the company's first systematically
built
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:51:48 -0400, Chad wrote:
> I'm pretty sure a lot of this has been fixed (I vaguely remember Tim
doing
> some cleanup to the installer for XSS issues), but I can't say for sure.
> Forwarding to wikitech-l, this is more of a tech issue than Foundation
> one.
Please don't both
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
> your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
> requirement even to credit Wikimedia Commons.
>
> While the project can request that reusers cre
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise
Or not done anything \o/
>>> I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
>>> just responding to the claim that
Durova wrote:
> An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.
>
> Another volunteer at Commons first spotted it.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Photo_on_ebay
>
> Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
> eBay:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-WWII-WARSAW-GHETTO-UPRISING-Ju
An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.
Another volunteer at Commons first spotted it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Photo_on_ebay
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-WWII-WARSAW-GHETTO-UPRISING-Jurgen-Stroop-Photo_W0QQitemZ20
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > And that has proven to be a huge misjudgment.
>
> Which didn't entirely depend on us.
The WMF tremendously overestimated future hardware costs by making horrible
assumptions, which I pointed out on this very list. That depende
Hello!
> And that has proven to be a huge misjudgment.
Which didn't entirely depend on us. We're a young organization, we
depend on lots of external influences. You going and pointing fingers,
without trying to understand, that there were reasons to behave in
that way, isn't constructive.
You said:
> ... you haven't
> taken the time or effort to pay attention to when these issues have been
> discussed in numerous, varied forums across the Internet
To which I replied that it isn't Domus' responsibility to monitor the
entire internet for rumors, discussions, and idle speculation abo
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I can gather: Total
> > spending was
> > $1.7 million less than budgeted. Tech spending was $1.7 million
> > less than
> > budgeted. And $1.7 million was sitting in the bank accounts at the
Andrew Whitworth opined:
++
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Gregory Kohs https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
>* I would consider it equally "trolling" to assume or pretend that an
*>* unfortunate financial situation did not happen, just because you haven't
Hi!
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I can gather: Total
> spending was
> $1.7 million less than budgeted. Tech spending was $1.7 million
> less than
> budgeted. And $1.7 million was sitting in the bank accounts at the
> end of
> the fiscal year.
We did not spend on hardware, be
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
> > 1.7
>
> How was that budgeted? Which year? Can you point me at that unspent
> software development budget number?
>
http://blog.p2pedia.org/2008/06/foundation-who-cried-wolf.html
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I can gather: Tot
Gregory,
> Here are at least a dozen for you, Domas:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22%241.7+million%22+technology+wikimedia+%22sue+gardner%22
Oh wow, I got my chance to read Valleywag, probably that should be the
major point of insight for all the efficient non-profit governan
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> I would consider it equally "trolling" to assume or pretend that an
> unfortunate financial situation did not happen, just because you haven't
> taken the time or effort to pay attention to when these issues have been
> discussed in numerous,
Domas says about Anthony:
How was that budgeted? Which year? Can you point me at that unspent
software development budget number?
...
You are trolling and you're piggy-backing.
We have dedicated resources for that, paid out of donations, yes.
I would consider
Hi!
> I'll believe it when I see it.
;-)
> AFAICT, the dumps still don't work, and you
> still haven't hired a new CTO.
Dumps work better, and there's work done to get a new CTO.
> 1.7
How was that budgeted? Which year? Can you point me at that unspent
software development budget number?
>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>> Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
>> "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
>>
>> Just a crazy idea that has b
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
> "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
>
> Just a crazy idea that has been following me.
Rest assured, it is simply a crazy idea. Micr
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:47 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
> "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
>
Nikola Smolenski answered that: "Whatever licenses they are vi
2009/9/15 Anthony :
>>
>> > Still doesn't work. And yes, it needs an executive level decision,
>> > and it
>> > needs a kick in the ass from the board to get the executive level to
>> > make
>> > that decision.
>>
>> That work is being done at the moment, I'd think that it is being
>> handled prop
>
> > Still doesn't work. And yes, it needs an executive level decision,
> > and it
> > needs a kick in the ass from the board to get the executive level to
> > make
> > that decision.
>
> That work is being done at the moment, I'd think that it is being
> handled properly. On the other hand, I'm
Dear list,
List summary service for August is done. Whew! Busy month. Sorry I
didn't manage to do a biweekly edition last month.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2009_August_1-31
Now to start on September :)
And a questions: I've gotten a couple requests for an RSS version
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> I've never heard of a major software company hauling
>> someone to court over a non-commercial/educational use license, and
>> while it's probably happened I doubt it's a frequent occurr
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:19 PM, wrote:
> You can't combine a CC-BY work with a CC-BY-SA work without either
> imposing a SA limitation on the CC-BY work,
Which anyone can do when combining CC-By and CC-By-SA works by others.
(If you don't want people adding random limitations to your works;
do
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I've never heard of a major software company hauling
> someone to court over a non-commercial/educational use license, and
> while it's probably happened I doubt it's a frequent occurrence.
>
Probably doesn't fit your "major software comp
Hay (Husky) wrote:
>
> That's why it's so important, for projects like ours, to use a
> license such as BY-SA that it usable by anyone, at anytime, for any
> purpose without that ambiguity.
>
Except that it is not, the SA license ghettoizes the work just as an NC
licenses does. The only differen
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM, wrote:
> It makes no difference. Wikipedia licenses everything on for commercial
> use. As you cannot relicense someone else's work, you cannot use a NC
> license worked. Most NC licensees probably wouldn't mind wikipedia
> reusing stuff, but they don't want big m
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Sorry,
> But my question is not if we as a wikimedia group is violating the license,
> but if they as users are.
> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
>
> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
>
It makes no difference.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I wanted to let folks know that WMF is decommissioning some 35 servers,
and is willing to accept requests from users interested in using them
for Wikimedia-related purposes. If you can ship a server from Tampa to
where you are, and if you can p
2009/9/15 Gregory Kohs :
> I was sort of surprised to learn today that Mediawiki software has had 37
> security holes identified:
>
> http://akahele.org/2009/09/false-sense-of-security/
>
> Are most of these patched now, or are they still open? If still open, is
> the Foundation making site & user
Hello Gregory,
> I was sort of surprised to learn today that Mediawiki software has
> had 37
> security holes identified:
Why would you be surprised? It is web software, that allows _most_
flexibility for its users, you can expect most problems because of
that, especially in XSS area.
On t
Hi!
> Right...where can I go to download the full history English
> Wikipedia dump?
It is being done!
> Still doesn't work. And yes, it needs an executive level decision,
> and it
> needs a kick in the ass from the board to get the executive level to
> make
> that decision.
That work is
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> Italian Wikimedians are reporting that Wikimedia Italia (the Italian
> local chapter) and former chapter president (and former Wikimedia
> board member) Frieda Brioschi are being sued for an outrageous sum
> over alleged defamation in a (now-dele
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> I was sort of surprised to learn today that Mediawiki software has had 37
> security holes identified:
>
> http://akahele.org/2009/09/false-sense-of-security/
>
> Are most of these patched now, or are they still open? If still open, is
> the
Italian Wikimedians are reporting that Wikimedia Italia (the Italian
local chapter) and former chapter president (and former Wikimedia
board member) Frieda Brioschi are being sued for an outrageous sum
over alleged defamation in a (now-deleted) biography on Italian
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.o
I was sort of surprised to learn today that Mediawiki software has had 37
security holes identified:
http://akahele.org/2009/09/false-sense-of-security/
Are most of these patched now, or are they still open? If still open, is
the Foundation making site & user security more of a priority in 2010?
2009/9/15 Tim Landscheidt :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
the community had the final say they may have done otherwise
>
>>> Or not done anything \o/
>
>> I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
>> just r
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
>>> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise
>> Or not done anything \o/
> I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
> just responding to the claim that there was
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
>> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
> Better stated, I would like your opinion on this, if it is not off topic.
>> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
> Is working on the wikipedia mor
2009/9/15 Domas Mituzas :
> Thomas wrote:
>> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
>> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise
>
> Or not done anything \o/
I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
just responding to the claim th
> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
Better stated, I would like your opinion on this, if it is not off topic.
> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
Is working on the wikipedia more like a commercial non profit work and
not really non commecial in terms of th
Sorry,
But my question is not if we as a wikimedia group is violating the license,
but if they as users are.
I would like a professional opinion on the question :
Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
thanks,
mike
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Yeah. Not the most desired outcome for the creator, though.
>
> One of the benefits of CC is to encourage worry-free distribution by
> helping creators be entirely up-front about what they're happy to have
> happen with their material, but this
http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/09/16/open-standards-sign-language/
Not quite there yet, but interesting and promising.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/found
2009/9/15 Mike Linksvayer :
> It's not that bad. What you see is a scale where 1=noncommercial and
> 100=commercial, and creators rated the case you mention 59.2 on that
> scale, users 71.7 -- so creators see that case as less commercial than
> users, which is ideal if fewer disputes are a good ou
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray
> wrote:
> > One interesting example the blog post brings up - a
> > nonprofit-with-ads, paying for hosting costs that way, is that
> > commercial? 60% of creators say it is non-commercial, wh
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/9/15 Anthony :
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) wrote:
>>> with its 255 pages
>>> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
>>> instead of fully read :)
>>
>> Anything to disrupt my view that the NC
2009/9/15 Anthony :
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) wrote:
>
>> with its 255 pages
>> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
>> instead of fully read :)
>
> Anything to disrupt my view that the NC licenses suck because it's unclear
> what they mean?
Not
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) wrote:
> with its 255 pages
> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
> instead of fully read :)
Anything to disrupt my view that the NC licenses suck because it's unclear
what they mean?
___
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
>> restricted software
>> for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.
>
> No, we should not. Whatever lic
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
> Anyway, back then it didn't need board member campaigning - whole
> board knew it is important task, it needed executive level decision,
> that we need someone dedicated to this task, and once such discussion
> was made, dumps started rollin
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
> restricted software
> for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.
No, we should not. Whatever licenses they are violating, we are not a
party to these licenses and
This brings up my favorite subject:
Is working on Free software or Wikipedia defined as Commercial non profit work?
It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
restricted software
for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.
commercial business activ
2009/9/15 Brian :
> I poked around a bit, and I think they have to actually sign in with the new
> account before its in the table, which makes sense, and means the #s are
> reasonable.
This is certainly my understanding - the account is created
as-and-when you log in at the new wiki, or visit it
Hoi,
I just noticed that not only is the video of my presentation about the
MediaWiki Wave integration not online probably lost, I found that the
presentations are also not available on Commons. I assumed that my
slideshows would be put on Commons as I send them when asked. The
presentations are al
This might interest some of you:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial
This is the long-awaited study on a large survey on how people
interpret the terms "non-commercial" and "commercial", like in the
NC-licenses from Creative Commons. Pretty interesting stuff for people
intereste
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2009, at 22:47, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>
>> At another conference, the video switched from the camera
>> viewpoint to the slides back and forth (I do not know wheth-
>> er that was done while recording or in post-production). Ob-
>
On 14 Sep 2009, at 22:47, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> At another conference, the video switched from the camera
> viewpoint to the slides back and forth (I do not know wheth-
> er that was done while recording or in post-production). Ob-
> viously, this requires more manpower but the result was
> wo
Hello,
> Given the fact that no candidate for the board seems to have
> campaigned prominently for this issue in this year's elec-
> tion and it does not even seem to have been mentioned in the
> two before, I do not see why the board should have decided
> otherwise.
You poor souls, always willin
72 matches
Mail list logo
