James wrote: > 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.
I agree of course that this sort of institutional inertia can be incredibly frustrating, especially in cases like WHO -- a publicly funded international institution which should be putting its work in the public domain. For all its own institutional failings (and there are many, past and present), the US was at least able to get that much right in its copyright laws more than 100 years ago. I don't believe we should let publicly funded institutions that use restrictive licensing terms off the hook, and there's a degree to which positive persuasion needs to be coupled with public pressure here. Like Pete, I'm curious about resources & practices folks have found useful in persuading individuals or institutions to release materials under free licenses. I'll reiterate that my sense is that _new_ partnerships that focus on material yet to be created may be a good way to get a foot in the door, so to speak. Alessandro wrote: > At least, we should start centralizing that non-free material locally uploaded > since it's already there. I would like logos of Universities and coat of arms > of public administration and doubtful old images that according to some > platforms are free but for Commons are not (gray areas), to be on a NC > part of Commons, or a dedicated platform (i always link > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki_(2). I agree that a nonfree wiki that does not alter existing policies (i.e. is not intended to open the door to NC) is a reasonable thing to consider for practical reasons; however, I personally oppose these proposals on practical grounds. While the opposition to the main proposal is currently a minority, I suspect the ratio would change rather quickly if the proposals were more widely announced. I see two primary scenarios for how a nonfree wiki could play out: - scenario A: a nonfree wiki is successful at policing uploads and usage consistent with the policies across wikis. Uploaders from those communities are frequently frustrated and confused by deletions, discussion, and policies of the nonfree wiki, just as they are frustrated by deletions, discussions, and policies on Wikimedia Commons today. With one more wiki in the mix, the process of uploading files is increasingly seen to be akin to a Klingon Pain Stick Ritual. - scenario B: a nonfree wiki is unsuccessful at policing uploads, and becomes a DMCA magnet or worse. Communities are frustrated because their own rules for limiting nonfree uploads are frequently violated through the transclusion of files from the nonfree repository. In fact, a combination of those two scenarios -- where there's deep frustration about both enforcement and lack thereof -- seems most likely to me. It's worth asking whether there are good ways to improve the handling and patrolling of nonfree files. I suspect there are many, but I'm pretty sure the creation of a separate repository for this stuff is an idea that doesn't withstand scrutiny. Exemptions must be considered in a project-local context, both in terms of policy and concrete use, by a community in its own language, and any improvements to efficiency must start from this central premise. 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>
