[Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

Fri Aug 22 17:21:29 UTC 2008

On Thursday 21 August 2008 08:08:49 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?

On a more serious note, perhaps bribe^H^H^H^H^Heconomic aid could be given to 
the government of an internationally recognised small country (say, Nauru), 
so that they drop copyright altogether?

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: mboverload <mboverloadlister at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"
>
> [[Principality of Sealand]], anyone?
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > Among the benefits of  have organized Commons in the US, is that we
> > can go by US copyright law. The
> > alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive
> > position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive
> > meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of
> > surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As
> > obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things
> > will be.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton 
<thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
> >>> > In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels.  Regardless of his
> >>> > intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the
> >>> > WMF.  If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding
> >>> > resolution would be a much better means.
> >>>
> >>> I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board
> >>> member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not
> >>> sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as
> >>> spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the
> >>> foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal
> >>> disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was
> >>> incorrect.
> >>
> >> For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July
> >> 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.