headers
Brianna Laugher | 1 Dec 05:31
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Announcement: #ifexist limit

On 01/12/2007, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh@...> wrote:
> Obviously we have a problem out here.

Yeah. How do we organise that coup?

...[[Template:Potd/Month]] is the problem. Does it pass the limit for
a single day POTD? what about a week's worth? Maybe we just won't be
able to display 31 POTDs & all their captions at a time.

 Brianna

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tim Starling <tstarling@...>
> Date: Nov 30, 2007 4:39 PM
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Announcement: #ifexist limit
> To: wikitech-l@...
>
>
> Please copy this to your local village pump or other relevant on-wiki forum.
>
> Werdna's #ifexist limit feature is now live. In response to complaints of
> template breakage, I have increased the limit on Wikimedia wikis
> temporarily, from 100 to 2000. Barring a coup, it will stay at 2000 for
> about a week, and then we'll lower it to 100.
>
> Please use this one-week period to check pages and templates that use
> #ifexist heavily. Look in the HTML source of the preview or page view.
> There will be a "limit report" that looks like this:
>
> <!--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Stephen Bain | 1 Dec 13:00
Picon

Re: Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Announcement: #ifexist limit

On Dec 1, 2007 3:31 PM, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
>
> ...[[Template:Potd/Month]] is the problem. Does it pass the limit for
> a single day POTD? what about a week's worth? Maybe we just won't be
> able to display 31 POTDs & all their captions at a time.

If I'm reading it right, all the #ifexist there is to show the POTD
regardless of whether someone has called it 2007-12-01 or 2007-12-1.
If that's the case, I don't see the problem in eliminating all of
those #ifexist cases and just taking care to name the day pages
properly.

--

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Platonides | 1 Dec 16:28
Picon

Re: Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Announcement: #ifexist limit

Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007 3:31 PM, Brianna Laugher wrote:
>> ...[[Template:Potd/Month]] is the problem. Does it pass the limit for
>> a single day POTD? what about a week's worth? Maybe we just won't be
>> able to display 31 POTDs & all their captions at a time.
> 
> If I'm reading it right, all the #ifexist there is to show the POTD
> regardless of whether someone has called it 2007-12-01 or 2007-12-1.
> If that's the case, I don't see the problem in eliminating all of
> those #ifexist cases and just taking care to name the day pages
> properly.

It's the same page existence being checked many times.
With two simple changes 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_day passed from 
using 92 #ifexist to 43.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Erik Moeller | 2 Dec 02:22
Picon
Gravatar

Requirements for a strong copyleft license

(This is a posting to multiple lists.)

As you've probably read, the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed in
principle to support an update of Wikipedia content from the GFDL to
CC-BY-SA, pending a community approval of such a migration. The FSF
and Creative Commons are supporting us to make this transition
possible.

One open issue is the way both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA deal with
embedded media files like images, sounds, and videos. The FSF
interprets the GFDL so that e.g. a photograph embedded into an article
would require the article to be "copyleft" under the GFDL; Creative
Commons does not interpret CC-BY-SA in this fashion (at least
according to some public statements).

The actual clauses are very similar, however, and I believe what is
really needed is a license that gives authors the choice of "strong
copyleft" for embedded media: the work into which the media are
embedded (whether either work is text, sound, film, a rich media mix,
or whatever) should be licensed under a copyleft license.

Wikimedia could then allow contributors of multimedia to choose this
license, and to change files under the GFDL (as opposed to text) to
it.

From _my_ point of view, the key requirements are:

* It should apply to any type of embedded media, i.e. not limited just
to photos embedded into text;
* It should, in principle, be very similar to the CC-BY-SA license,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 2 Dec 02:53
Picon

Re: [Commons-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@...> wrote:
> One open issue is the way both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA deal with
> embedded media files like images, sounds, and videos.
[snip]
> The actual clauses are very similar, however, and I believe what is
> really needed is a license that gives authors the choice of "strong
> copyleft" for embedded media: the work into which the media are
> embedded (whether either work is text, sound, film, a rich media mix,
> or whatever) should be licensed under a copyleft license.

If a visual artist doesn't want copyleft for images they should just
use CC-BY (or better, 'PD').

The purpose of copyleft is to help expand the pool of free content
with a tit-for-tat mechanism.  'Weak copyleft'  simply isn't
interesting in terms of its ability to achieve this goal.

When it comes to photographs and other still, and especially raster,
illustrations the predominate forms of reuse are verbatim. When there
are modifications within the frame of time image they are generally so
trivial that they can be easily reproduced by anyone who is
interested.

The question of "does anyone here want a weak copyleft license" is
just the far more interesting one...

I do not believe there is any point to having a copyleft license for
media which isn't strong.  Does anyone here disagree?

Certainties the world does not yet YET ANOTHER free content license if
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mike Linksvayer | 2 Dec 03:41
Gravatar

Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Erik Moeller wrote:
> (This is a posting to multiple lists.)

NB one of the lists, cc-licenses, is moderated.  I'll approve anything 
related to the development of a CC license, and be fairly lenient about 
what "related" means in this discussion, but really off-topic posts will 
not be approved.

We want to make it possible for all interested parties to participate in 
development of CC licenses, and super high volume is not conducive to 
that end. :)

See http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-October/006193.html

> From _my_ point of view, the key requirements are:
> 
> * It should apply to any type of embedded media, i.e. not limited just
> to photos embedded into text;
> * It should, in principle, be very similar to the CC-BY-SA license,
> except for its provision on "Collections";
> * It should be adaptable to as many legal frameworks as possible;
> * IMPORTANT - I believe it should allow mixing of similar licenses,
> e.g. CC-BY-SA into BSD -- the Definition of Free Cultural Works
> endorsed by Wikimedia could be a guideline as to which licenses can be
> mixed: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

I like all of your points, including the last one, but it is a little 
unclear.  I think what you mean is that for "embedded" uses, the 
containing document should have to be under a free license, not 
necessarily a compatible copyleft license.  This would address use of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Gavin Baker | 2 Dec 04:00
Favicon

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license


(I'm replying all, so apologies if this message is an intrusion. Since
my primary recipient is cc-licenses, I'll be very brief and direct.)

I share Erik's concern with the working of CC licenses in relation to
"embedded" media.

If I'm not mistaken, the CC licenses consider such a use a "collection"
(used under the right to copy, granted by all CC licenses) rather than a
"derivative work" (used under the right to modify -- only granted by
licenses without the No Derivatives clause, and subject to the Share
Alike clause under some licenses).

However, I don't think this is how users of the SA or ND licenses expect
the license to work. They understand and expect that their work might be
included in an archive alongside works of various licenses; they don't
consider this a derivative work. But when your photo is printed in a
magazine alongside text, the use feels very derivative. It feels like
the kind of use you were trying to prevent (ND) or to restrict to
similarly-licensed works (SA).

I am not a lawyer, but there must be a way to make the distinction
between an item in a database and a photograph on the page of a
magazine. I think that most users of CC licenses with the SA or ND
clauses would agree that the clause should work this way.

However, we should avoid the creation of a new license if at all
possible. I do not think it is necessary here. What we need is not
another license, but for the existing CC licenses to operate the way
their users would expect.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Samuel Klein | 2 Dec 08:10
Favicon

Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license


On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> From _my_ point of view, the key requirements are:
>>
>> * It should apply to any type of embedded media, i.e. not limited just
>> to photos embedded into text;
>> * It should, in principle, be very similar to the CC-BY-SA license,
>> except for its provision on "Collections";
>> * It should be adaptable to as many legal frameworks as possible;
>> * IMPORTANT - I believe it should allow mixing of similar licenses,
>> e.g. CC-BY-SA into BSD -- the Definition of Free Cultural Works
>> endorsed by Wikimedia could be a guideline as to which licenses can be
>> mixed: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
>
> I like all of your points, including the last one, but it is a little
> unclear.  I think what you mean is that for "embedded" uses, the
> containing document should have to be under a free license, not
> necessarily a compatible copyleft license.  This would address use of
> copyleft images on Wikinews (CC BY), for example.
>
>> I would like to kickstart the discussion to get a first for such a
>> license - it could be called CC-BY-SA+ - written as soon as possible.
>> :-)

Erik, great points and suggestions.

> I don't know why yet another class of license would be needed --
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Delphine Ménard | 2 Dec 13:11
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

On Dec 2, 2007 2:22 AM, Erik Moeller <erik@...> wrote:
> (This is a posting to multiple lists.)
>
> As you've probably read, the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed in
> principle to support an update of Wikipedia content from the GFDL to
> CC-BY-SA, pending a community approval of such a migration. The FSF
> and Creative Commons are supporting us to make this transition
> possible.

I am sorry, I do not read the resolution
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update)
 the way you seem to interpret it.

To me the points are:
- It is hereby resolved that:

    * The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License
be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by
mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;

=> The whole resolution is in any case submitted to the changes
brought to the GFDL.

    * Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will
initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a
final decision on relicensing.

=> If that relicensing (actually, I find the term relicensing is very
misleading here, because it seems to say that relicensing will happen
and THEN the dicussion will come.) or rather, in my interpretation, if
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Artur Fijałkowski | 2 Dec 13:27
Picon

Re: [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

2007/12/2, Delphine Ménard <notafishz <at> gmail.com>:
>
> I am sorry, I do not read the resolution
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update)
>  the way you seem to interpret it.

If FSF release GFDL-X compatible with CC-BY-SA-Y there will be no need
of any discussion with community, cause even if WMF projects stay on
''GFDL-1.2 or any later'' it will effectively mean: you can reuse our
content on CC-BY-SA-Y.

AJF/WarX
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane