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 c

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

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

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > 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

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 Snow 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 lice

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

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snow 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 radicall

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

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 th

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 dismi

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 > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gera

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

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen 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 ma

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

Hoi, The purpose of Wikipedia and its sister projects is to make material available and have it used as widely as possible. The fact that we have two licenses is a reasonable compromise because it allows everyone who remained on the GFDL to continue to use our material. The purpose of the change ha

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

Petr Kadlec, 04/08/2009 10:34: > I have said this to you before: GFDL has never been incompatible with > CC in the context of embedding images in encyclopedic text. Still, it's quite awful to have to comply to two licenses to reproduce one article (CC-BY-SA for text + GFDL for images): then, you

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

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

2009/8/4 Gerard Meijssen : > 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 howe

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 __