Erik, thanks for posting the essay here. Glad to see the interest in this topic.
I wrote this because I have found that when somebody asks me about the NC provision, I often want to point them to a simple webpage (rather than "reinventing the wheel" every time it comes up). There are some pages out there (I listed some in the "See also" section), but I have yet to find somewhere this particular point -- the need of a general license to issue clear guidance -- articulated anywhere in a concise, accessible way. I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see that the possibility of Wikimedia generally accepting NC-licensed work is being discussed. But apart from that discussion, I think many of you in this discussion have, at one time or another, wanted to help guide someone toward using a more permissive license, rather than a NC license. For those who have, do you have favorite webpages you find helpful to share? Does this one seem like a useful addition? I'd appreciate any feedback or constructive edits to this essay; I also think it would be useful to have some of the other arguments, currently collected in longer documents, expressed in more "bite-sized" pieces like this, which could be linked together. Do others agree, and if so, are you inclined to help draft some complementary pages? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM effe iets anders <[email protected]> wrote: > The question is however as well: how many open licensed content creators > would switch to NC if they were aware that this would be 'good enough' for > Wikipedia - even if that means in reality only English Wikipedia (but who > cares about other languages) and without actually allowing to build on top > of it? > > I have found the argument 'don't use NC because then it can't be used on > Wikipedia' rather convincing in the past. It will not always work, and I > also wish it would convince /more/ organizations. But then, I would also > wish that enwiki wouldn't use fair use exceptions - so maybe I'm not the > benchmark you'd be looking at anyway. > > Lodewijk > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM James Heilman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes one of the stronger reasons to reject all use of the NC license is > that > > it increases incentives for other organizations to actually adopt open > > licenses. I simply wish that such a position would convince more > > organizations. WHO has repeatedly told me that we, as a non-profit, are > > already free to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us. > > > > James > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi James :) > > > > > > (This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit > > > on this list.) > > > > > > > We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons > > > > listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy > > > videos) > > > > less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use. > > > > > > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF > > > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new > > > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could > > > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy, > > > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default > > > license. > > > > > > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism. > > > > > > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to > > > want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it > > > can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about > > > altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now, > > > Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive > > > licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly > > > poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a > > > nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how > > > is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in > > > some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to > > > Wikimedia projects? > > > > > > If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the > > > free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms > > > strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be > > > short-sighted. > > > > > > Warmly, > > > Erik > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > -- > > James Heilman > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
