[Licom-l] Opt-out?

Wed May 27 22:48:58 UTC 2009

The onus is no longer on our side, as it is stated clearly that the migration will affect not just text, but also images. If we give them until June 15 to change, we have done more than enough to accommodate their concerns.

And let's not forget to address the issues of using any GFDL-1.2 only materials after the migration. 

Andrew 

"Fill the world with children who care and things start looking up."

> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 16:48:37 -0500
> From: kaldari at gmail.com
> To: licom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Licom-l] Opt-out?
> 
> Apparently a lot of people don't even believe that the migration is
> supposed to apply to images (even though that was explained on the Q&A
> page). So I anticipate we are going to face a lot of opposition and
> foot-dragging (multiplied by 300 projects). Any official
> statements/recommendations that the Foundation could make regarding
> license migration for media would surely help.
> 
> Ryan Kaldari
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> 2009/5/26 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
> >>> One of the unresolved issues in my estimation is how to react to
> >>> people who say: "Relicensing?  Not my work, no way, no how!".
> >>
> >> Yes: I don't think we can give any prescriptive answer, but for this
> >> and for some other licensing-related practical questions (including
> >> the "external content attribution" question), I think we should start
> >> coming up with a list of recommendations for Wikimedia communities.
> >> Communities would be free to implement these as they see fit.
> >>
> >> An example recommendation here could be to extend the courtesy of
> >> removal where doing so is reasonably possible without major
> >> disruption.
> >
> > On this issue the WMF would be within their rights to be prescriptive.
> >  (Whether they want to be is a separate question.)  The relicensing
> > provisions require an overt act by the Foundation, so the WMF could
> > choose to exclude certain works.
> >
> > For example, the WMF could say:"Relicensing applies to all media files
> > validly tagged as GFDL 1.2 or later versions as of 12:01 AM on June
> > 15th, 2009".  With the stipulation that anyone who doesn't want to
> > participate has between now and June 15th to change a "1.2 or later
> > versions" tag on their own work to a "1.2-only" tag.  That has the
> > advantage of being final and legally binding.
> >
> > The alternative, to let communities set their own rules, could also
> > work though I think it is more likely to drag the process out.  It
> > also risks the creation of fragmentary rules (what if Commons has
> > different rules than EN?) and leading to fights where someone other
> > than the author reuploads a work claiming they are just exercising
> > their rights, etc.
> >
> > -Robert Rohde
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Licom-l mailing list
> > Licom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/licom-l
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Licom-l mailing list
> Licom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/licom-l

_________________________________________________________________
Create a cool, new character for your Windows Live™ Messenger. 
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9656621
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/licom-l/attachments/20090527/4c9bc035/attachment.htm 