Why one small project changed from CC-by-nc-sa to CC-by-sa:
http://zak.greant.com/free-culture-vs-fear-culture-vs-fee-culture
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
Hi,Thank you for your replies. Are there any notable examples you could
mention, or point me to?
Best regards,
Bence
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> That was the Bundesarchiv.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bundesarchiv
>
> 2009/
As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the
proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the
water. Despite requests for an update on-wiki, no updates have come
from the Foundation since January. Looking at the archives here, it
looks like the last update was from
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari :
> it
> looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in
> which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week,
> and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted?
I don't remember seeing a survey... I certainly didn't fill one out.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari :
>
>> it
>> looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in
>> which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week,
>> and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted?
>>
> I don't remember seeing a sur
2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
> We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
> that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
> get some more information that would help work out details for
> attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the lic
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
>
>> We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
>> that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
>> get some more information that would help work out details for
>> attribution standards. Not ev
Hoi,
The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we
choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It is
in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on
the subject make a difference.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/18 Thomas
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we
> choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It is
> in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on
> the subject make a difference.
I
Hoi,
Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the
license says anyway.. and this is the implication, then there is no point in
throwing the child away with the bathing water as you propose. So imho we
should compare the two licenses and in essence we already agree that t
2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
> That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in
> the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
___
foundation-l mailing list
f
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen :
> Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the
> license says anyway
It is? Then I won't be voting for it...
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://list
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to
consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's
post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the
switch, and when they do we will be bound by what the CC-BY-SA says
attribution is. We take
2009/2/18 Brian :
> It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to
> consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's
> post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the
> switch, and when they do we will be bound by what the CC-BY-SA sa
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
>
>> That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in
>> the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
>>
> I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
>
There's the licensing update pag
It's been said quite clearly that the foundation doesn't have to
consult the community, although not in this thread.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/18 Brian :
>> It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to
>> consult the community on this
2009/2/18 Brian :
> It's been said quite clearly that the foundation doesn't have to
> consult the community, although not in this thread.
Legally, they can do whatever the hell they like, but it's always been
made very clear that they have no intention of switching without
community approval.
__
2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
>>
>>> That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in
>>> the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
>>>
>> I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
>>
> There's
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you
respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and
"arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of
the arthistory section of the wiki
Hoi,
This is indeed an interesting question.. I hope that there are ways to
accommodate you.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/19 basedrop
>
> Hello,
> I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you
> respond with the proper place.
>
> I'm building out a social networkin
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:36 PM, basedrop wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you
> respond with the proper place.
>
You'd probably get better replies on wikitech-l, but you're here already.
>
> I'm building out a social networking site c
2009/2/18 basedrop :
>
> Hello,
> I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you
> respond with the proper place.
>
> I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and
> "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of
> t
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari :
> As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the
> proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the
> water. Despite requests for an update on-wiki, no updates have come
> from the Foundation since January. Looking at the archives here, it
>
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari :
> As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the
> proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the
> water. Despite requests for an update on-wiki, no updates have come
> from the Foundation since January. Looking at the archives here, it
>
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it
on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of
delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history p
The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/18 basedrop :
> Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
>
> I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it
> on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of
> de
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Report to the Board: Davos
> Prepared by: Sue Gardner, Executive Director
> Prepared for: Wikimedia Board of Trustees
> Date: February 3, 2009
>
>
> Interestingly, a number of people complained to me about their
> articles being overly negative. Obviously Jimmy gets this a
2009/2/19 basedrop :
> Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
>
> I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it
> on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of
> delivering something to a specific constituency.
Delivering something to a
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
>
>> We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
>> that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
>> get some more information that would help work out details for
>> attribution standards. Not ev
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
> per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
> interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive
> rights to content they add to the site (where they are the
> sole origi
I find the suggestion in this discussion fascinating.
Suppose we did allow fully functional wikipages to be loaded from WMF
servers and embedded in external sites in roughly the same way that
something like Google Maps can be embedded in third party sites.
I can see some practical problems (e.g.
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde :
> Do other people agree that supporting live mirrors, if it could be
> done in a practical manner, would be a natural extension of the
> Foundation's free content goals?
No, because I can't see the benefit over a hyperlink.
___
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
> per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
> interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive
> rights to content they add to the site (where they are the
> sole origi
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>> Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
>> per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
>> interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive
>> rights to
geni wrote:
> 2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
>> per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
>> interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive
>> rights to content they add to the site (where th
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Interestingly, a number of people complained to me about their
>> articles being overly negative. Obviously Jimmy gets this all the
>> time, but I was surprised how often it was the first thing a person
>> would
Sage Ross wrote:
> From my experience talking with people (mostly academics) who have
> Wikipedia articles, they are often unhappy with their articles but
> also either don't want to interfere in a community they aren't part
> of, or don't want to be seen as complaining on their own behalf and
> th
Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> 2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>>
>>> Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
>>> per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
>>> interpret the license. Contri
For the record, I disagree that "the way we are going to do
this is different from what the license says anyway" at least
as the starting point. I think it should be very carefully
thought about if there were a conscious decision to
violate the license explicitly. That said there is of course
a gra
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are
> introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can
> be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities
> that were there before, and still remain.
> I disagr
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> And of course both things happen all the time, simultaneously.
> What you need to remember is that all the people who are
> secretly satisfied their article is remarkably fair to them, or
> even greatly relieved how merciful their article is about their
> various foib
On Tuesday, after Kat and I had spent a couple days assisting Sue and
Erik with interviews for the CPO position (an intriguing group of
candidates, by the way), I was at the BART station on my way to the
airport. I bought my ticket from the machine, and when I pulled my
receipt out of the dispe
Hoi,
Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/19 Thomas Dalton
> 2009/2/19 Robert Rohde :
> > Do other people agree that supporting live mirrors, if it could be
> > done in a practical manner, would be a natural extension of the
>
Hoi,
The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French
Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit flaky.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/19 Mark Williamson
> The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
>
> skype: node.ue
>
>
>
> 2009/2/18 b
Was it ever on French servers?
That aside: the two situations are entirely different. This proposal
is effectively outsourcing a section of Wikipedia to some experts
in the field. That's entirely unlike the Foundation deciding to add
an additional language for Wikipedia to appear in.
Playing devil
45 matches
Mail list logo
