[Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Fri Jul 15 21:07:40 UTC 2011

----- Original Message ----
> From: Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:07:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for 
>self-identified affiliation
> 
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message  ----
> >> From: James Heilman <jmh649 at gmail.com>
> >> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>  Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]  roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for
> >>self-identified  affiliation
> >>
> >> I agree something like "Open Knowledge  Project" would be a more  suitable
> >> term. Do they have any decals  like those of Health on the Net that  people
> >> could add to their  websites? Should there be different degree  of
> >> inclusiveness  depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this 
> as
> >> the  first step towards a greater sharing of content between   sites.
> >>
> >
> > "Open Knowledge Project" only works for  content creators or relatively new
> > projects that can still restrict  their intake of content like Commons has. 
> We
> > don't want dilute "Open  Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM 
>organizations
> > that want to  affiliate with the movement.  Some is needed more along the 
>lines
> > of  "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all
> >  internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to  
>forthrightly
> > advertising the most accurate copyright information we can  on all the 
>content we
> > curate."
> >
> > Birgitte  SB
> >
> 
> Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about  disseminating
> knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would  still
> apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse  -
> the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals,  and
> could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of  formal
> vehicle.

A GLAM institute doesn't necessarily own the copyrights to all the content they 
have. A project that contains copyrighted material would not be able to use an 
"Open Content" badge. "Open Content" has to be restricted to places where it is 
allowable to make derivatives works for commercial purposes from the content.

Yet it would be nice to have a way to notice a hypothetical GLAM that doesn't 
attempt to claim copyright on PD works they have merely digitized, freely 
licenses the derivative materials produced by employees, and makes detailed 
copyright info on their content accessible. There is a significant difference 
between an organization who might make such an effort and one that tends to 
stamp "All material Copyright of [GLAM]" everywhere (whether that claim could 
possibly be true or not). It would be nice to notice those organizations which 
are doing what they can with the rights they do control rather than saying "It's 
shame you accepted those donations of materials 50 years back without securing 
full copyright control, but with that content you can't join our club."

Birgitte SB