1 Nov 18:55
Re: Do we need Mayflower?
Hi, I missed the topic in the villagepump. So it is very nice that this email is send. Cheers, Huib -- -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak
1 Nov 21:05
2 Nov 11:30
Re: [Wikitech-l] uploads on commons will be temporarily disabled
River Tarnell: > during the migration to a new fileserver for images on commons, uploads to > commons will be disabled the move has been completed and uploads are enabled again. please report any strange issues that might be caused by the move. - river.
3 Nov 21:51
GFDL 1.3
Hi! GFDL 1.3 was released today (http://www.fsf.org/news/fdl-1.3-pr.html). Any thought which version should be default, multiple versions, etc? Eugene.
3 Nov 22:39
Re: GFDL 1.3
2008/11/3 Eugene Zelenko <eugene.zelenko@...>: > Hi! > > GFDL 1.3 was released today (http://www.fsf.org/news/fdl-1.3-pr.html). > Any thought which version should be default, multiple versions, etc? > > Eugene. > We default to CC-By-SA 3.0. One significant problem we face is if we actualy qualify for the swtichover: Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. We do not provide provides prominent facilitiesm to edit images. -- -- geni
3 Nov 22:43
Re: GFDL 1.3
2008/11/3 geni <geniice@...>: > Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any > World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also > provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. > > We do not provide provides prominent facilitiesm to edit images. We have version history and re-uploading, which IMO qualifies even by a literal reading. We can point to numerous examples in Commons of files that have been edited to demonstrate this. The licensing clause does not specify the degree of technical sophistication required. -- -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
3 Nov 22:56
Re: GFDL 1.3
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@...>: > 2008/11/3 geni <geniice@...>: >> Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any >> World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also >> provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. >> >> We do not provide provides prominent facilitiesm to edit images. > > We have version history and re-uploading, which IMO qualifies even by > a literal reading. We can point to numerous examples in Commons of > files that have been edited to demonstrate this. The licensing clause > does not specify the degree of technical sophistication required. "facilities for anybody to edit those works" That means providing facilities on wiki to allow actual editing. Not provideing facilities to support off wiki editing. -- -- geni
3 Nov 23:03
Re: GFDL 1.3
2008/11/3 geni <geniice@...>: > "facilities for anybody to edit those works" > > That means providing facilities on wiki to allow actual editing. Not > provideing facilities to support off wiki editing. Any kind of editing is dependent on client side support, and the extent of server-side support required to qualify is not further specified. You need a web browser to edit a Wikipedia article; WP by itself doesn't serve you any of the code required to do so, it merely implements an interface through which that is possible. So it does for images. The fact that the level of client-side in-browser support for image editing is currently lower than the level of client-side in-browser support for text editing does not negate the terms of the license. The important part is that we allow anyone to register an account and modify existing images through prominent facilities in the site. -- -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
3 Nov 23:32
Re: GFDL 1.3
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@...>: > 2008/11/3 geni <geniice@...>: >> "facilities for anybody to edit those works" >> >> That means providing facilities on wiki to allow actual editing. Not >> provideing facilities to support off wiki editing. > > Any kind of editing is dependent on client side support, and the > extent of server-side support required to qualify is not further > specified. No but wiki standard is accepted and our images do not come close to meeting that standard. >You need a web browser to edit a Wikipedia article; WP by > itself doesn't serve you any of the code required to do so, it merely > implements an interface through which that is possible. So it does for > images. The fact that the level of client-side in-browser support for > image editing is currently lower than the level of client-side > in-browser support for text editing does not negate the terms of the > license. You've just tried to argue that photobucket say qualifies as a Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site. Indeed any site that allows anyone to upload images would meet your requirements. In fact if we extend your reasoning to text the likes of scribd (there are free software manuals on there) and knol qualify. There is reading a license broadly but you appear to have gone beyond that. >The important part is that we allow anyone to register an(Continue reading)
3 Nov 23:37
Re: GFDL 1.3
2008/11/3 geni <geniice@...>: > There are no facilities on wikipedia for editing images. An open interface with low registration requirements, open write access and version history is sufficient, in my opinion. Furthermore, we also have the External Editors interface and have had it for quite some time: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:External_editors This goes far beyond what sites like Photobucket typically offer. -- -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
RSS Feed