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

Sun Aug 24 00:53:30 UTC 2008

Thank you for your insightful comments Domas.

Ant

Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>> *I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are
>> using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from
>> Wikipedia.*[1]
> 
> Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's "free culture manifesto",  
> Jimmy supported use of PD-art :)
> ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the law, but if you accidentally  
> take a photo of these works it would be great to put it on Wikipedia  
> for the public domain."
> 
> Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as otherwise we'd have  
> to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level answer to these  
> questions.
> 
> Generally, Foundation allows communities to decide, providing legal  
> boundaries, within which it supports the projects, and of course -  
> guidance, along the values.
> 
> In this case, Foundation has the interpretation of what is PD, and can  
> allow more flexible, Florida-centric evaluation of PD.
> Narrower PD interpretations are up for community.
> 
>> So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike  
>> have given
>> theirs *opinions*.
> 
> Is the need for an official statement your opinion or official  
> statement?
> Both Mike and Erik are responsible employees of Foundation, and they  
> definitely have capacity to discuss with community and provide  
> guidelines.
> 
>> If Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have official
>> statements regarding subjects like this, the Wikimedia Foundation  
>> doesn't
>> need to have a Board of Trustees (since everyone can assert anything)
> 
> Or rather, look at it the other way. As Wikimedia Foundation has  
> employees doing the job, Board of Trustees can limit the participation  
> in actual execution of mission.
> 
>> and
>> hundreds of volunteers don't need to waste your time translating  
>> gazillions
>> of pages related to the Board elections expecting that the  
>> Foundation never
>> given controversial rulings that can broke copyleft things in some  
>> contries.
> 
> I honor any volunteerism, and everyone's choice to spend whatever  
> effort they think is necessary.
> 
> You seem to believe that Foundation should have authority to rule the  
> community.
> Actually, Foundation is supporting the community, and BoT is having  
> authority over Foundation.
> 
> By electing members to BoT, you chose someone who supports you, not  
> rules you.
> 
> If you feel that Foundation may not be able to support you, if it  
> chose to be more flexible regarding PD interpretations, let us know,  
> and we will discuss that in next meeting.
> If you feel that Foundation should be actually restricting the  
> community, so our values are better preserved, we can probably do that  
> too, if that is really needed, though I'd really really like to trust  
> community with that.
> 
> Personally, I want to be able to spread more information, rather than  
> less.
> I'd like others to be able to spread more information too. Thats what  
> we're doing, right?
> 
> In perfect universe we may team up with other organizations and do  
> impact litigation and impact education, and teach the world that  
> freeing up the content is good.
> Well, ok, in perfect universe we wouldn't even have to do that :)
> 