User talk:Anthere/archive12

Open Proxies

Hi!

I'm Wulfson of Russian WP.

I would like to check whether you could help me with my problem - or if not, whether you could direct me to someone else.

This is an issue of the Meta ban on the use of open proxies (Meta:No open proxies).

The main question is - should we regard this ban as a MUST, as an obligatory rule that must be enforced in every Meta project and in every national language WP? Or does every national WP community decide for itself whether it should enforce it - say, by taking a vote?

I hope my question does not seem ludicrous. A majority of our active community does believe this Rule to be binding upon us, and we are blocking open proxies whenever we can - yet we still have a large enough group of people who do not wish to be restricted by this Rule and who even say we may go against it (or part of it), if we so decide it among ourselves. So they doubt the validity and relevance of our sysops' resolute action against open proxy users (actually, the ones that were blocked were all sockpuppets and/or vandals). They, in particular, refer to the fact that many decent users in Russian regions get access to the web and, accordingly, to WP, through Internet providers which, in their turn, use anonymous proxies to concentrate their web traffic and reduce costs. So they say that, by banning these, we may deprive them of the opportunity to edit WP at all.

Our position, however, is that we (say, the ArbCom) can reasonably consider all such cases, whenever they arise, and take a decision in every individual case (or region by region, if need be).

Question 2 is - what is Jimmy Wales' opinion? The conflicting factions here cite his quotes (or alleged quotes) that seem to disagree.

Finally, Question 3 - can a national language WP community take a vote on a Rule of its own, which does not contradict the Meta Rule yet goes even further, saying that users who persistently use open proxies without any apparent reason (or without a permit from the ArbCom) shall be blocked?

Regards, Wulfson 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"No Open Proxies" is a policy allowing us to simply block an open proxy if it's causing problems.

But of course not all open proxies should be blocked. E.g. for countries that can only reach us via proxies, it wouldn't make sense to block them.

Ant

Which countries are blocked? And why?

Some obvious suggestions about Wikimedia Foundation finances

Hi, I'm almost complete sure these have been brought up and looked into, but then again, as a Six Sigma "Black Belt" it is has been my experience that the "obvious" is sometimes overlooked.

I was reading some of a recent financial statement and was surprised to see ~$45,000 in PayPal fees and ~$76,000 in travel expenses. Am I reading these figures right? Holy cow. Have you negotiated lower than standard rates with PayPal? With the volumes of transactions you do, there must be a way to reduce the overhead of receiving donations. And the travel costs seem quite high as well...

Best Regards, --Aerik 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The paypal fees, OH yes we tried ! But with no results. This is why we also have the moneybooker system, which is far less costly, but alas, less known. And I agree, these fees are frankly too high. But we unfortunately have little lever here to negociate.

Travel. Seems high as well, but you must realise travel is not only board (board travel is always related to board job, so does not take into account travel costs to go to a conference, this is taken in charge by the organisations inviting us to talk). It is also all travel done by employees themselves (such as Delphine going to a wikimeet). It is also travel made to meet some potentiel content and business parters (this cost can not really be left aside. If we want to do business deals, we sometimes have to go and visit people. For example, I am invited to a meeting with Unesco people in may, my travel costs will be paid by WMF). Last, in travel is also included the travel support we gave to some people to go to Wikimania (this cost was actually supported by sponsors, but still appear in travel). So, when you add it up, yup, it comes to that amount overall. In all honesty, I do not think it is high. Since I became chair, the board met in Florida in november, in Rotterdam in January and will meet again in March. This is one trip every 2 months, but the amount of work we can get done when face to face is absolutely amazing.

Anthere 08:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - there are definitely some things that are simply done more effectively in person! On the paypal/moneybooker thing... it looks to me (after only a quick look) like moneybooker moves the fees from the seller to the buyer, basically (?). At any rate - have you looked at direct credit card payment solutions? There are a lot of suppliers, and it looks like many of them are more expensive than paypal... I had a radical idea: Do a press release with a request for quotes for credit card processing suppliers - have them come to you. Someone might choose to take it on at a very low rate for the good PR.

How about Google Checkout? They are advertising no fees for all of 2007 (http://checkout.google.com/seller/fees.html) and even after than, it may be cheaper than paypal (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-receiving-fees-outside) depending on the volume. OR, maybe Google would be willing to cut you a discount when PayPal wouldn't.

Best Regards, --Aerik 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ever give any more thought to Google Checkout? See https://checkout.google.com/seller/npo/ - free for about the next 14 months... I'm not endorsing Google Checkout necessarily, but it could save a lot of money. --Aerik 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

sugestion: creating a Wiki-based family tree site under Wikimedia

such a open-source project is necessary and important. are you guys considering such a project? Acidburn24m 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nod. This has already been mentionned (see Proposals for new projects), but did not meet so much support.... Anthere

ComCom

Je ne comprend pas pourquoi on ne peux pas demander le ComCom le suivant:

What does the Wikimedia Foundation do to fight corruption in Wikimedia projects? Is there a place to report corruption? What point of view has the Wikimedia Foundation with respect to the goals stated by Transparency International?

Le page du ComCom dit

Statement of scope: .... Supporting and overseeing communication with the general public.

Ou est-ce que on peut demander cette question? Pourqoui les persons du ComCom peuve directement bourer le question sans dire ou il y a une endroit mellieur pour cette question? Tobias Conradi 84.190.55.228 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand this question :(( Can you explain which corruption you are talking about ?

Wikinews ArbCom election

Hello again, Anthere! Can you confirm the Wikinews ArbCom election results so that the users can be officially inducted into the ArbCom? --Thunderhead 21:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

what are we exactly supposed to approve ? ant

Perhaps I misread the policy, but aren't all arbitration committies to be approved by the Board? Thunderhead 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Politique corporative pour l'usage des logos

Sur une page utilisateur, on voit apparaître un logo émis par la fondation. J'ai été tenté de demander au contributeur de virer l'image, mais il n'y a aucun document de la fondation qui prévienne cette utilisation. Est-ce acceptable ?

Les Wikimedia visual identity guidelines se concentrent principalement sur l'utilisation du logo « principal » de WikiMedia. Selon mon interprétation du texte, il faudrait que chaque logo émis par la fondation soit accompagné au minimum du texte « WIKIMEDIA ». Or, Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg, par exemple, ne contient pas ce texte. Il en est ainsi pour plusieurs autres logos émis par la fondation. Est-ce voulu ?

Sherbrooke 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

J'ai supprimé toute occurrence du logo sur mes pages. Désolé que ça ait pu poser problème. /84•5/06.04.2007/06:58 UTC/

I hereby request permission to alter Wikimedia logos for my own public, non-profit use.

I know that those logos are copyrighted, so I am asking for permission before altering them in any way, or posting these alterations publicly. Also, I was told by a member of the WP Community to ask you, so here I am. I have created a Google Co-op Wikimedia search engine for my own use, and I would like to combine - meaning place side by side in one image - several project logos in order to create a title image to use in place of the default text supplied by Google: "Wikimedia Search". The Search Engine is located here: http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=002002171166015021901%3Aiz3pyuxcryc w:en:User:Alex460, 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, specific community logos have been developped specifically for this type of use. You may find the relevant one here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg. YOu are free to use that logo, not the Wikipedia copyrighted logo. Cheers and good luck. Anthere 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. The image I have created is posted here: http://pages.burgert.name/WikimediaSearch1.png Alex460; w:en:User:Alex460 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks - imprint

Hello, Mrs. Nibart-Devouard,

my name is Gert Blazejewski, I work as administrator for German wikibooks. One of our authors told us recently, that we have Jimbo Wales still called as general contact (pls. have a look at http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Impressum). Now the question is, whether we should change the German Wikibooks - imprint and give your address as general contact address instead of Jimbo Wales. I am not sure in this general legal question. Can you help me? Kind regards, Gert Blazejewski, 2007/04/22.

hmmmm. I see. I have no idea where that phone number goes. No idea what the address is (not the official one in any cases), and the email is wikia type. Ouch. At the same time, I do think the contact should be someone actually in the office (which is the case of neither JImbo, nor I). Let me check with other board members how we fix that. Thank you for mentionning it. It is not really a legal issue proper, but definitly an organizational issue :-) Anthere 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator permissions on ro.Wikibooks

Hi, my name is Emily, I am administrator on ro.wikipedia and I require administrator permissions for ro.wikibooks, because I want to correct the mistakes, translate the interface, do some cleaning and add new content, considering that the two admins of ro.wikibooks were not active in the last months. Thank you, Emily

Please make this request here. Thanks, Yonatanh 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Edition war

Hello, I have been blocked by a steward (guillom for 1 day.because I added a paragraph on Nicolas Sarkozy's french wikipedia page about his position on software pattern which is very particular. No other french politician has been telling such things about that. All other politicians which expressed themselves about that. Can you talk with the steward who blocked me about this issue ?

My discussion page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:Le.iota

Can you please discuss with Guillom about this issue ?

TUM logo

The logo is in the public domain in Germany because of its ordinary and average design: design patent law (Geschmacksmustergesetz) applies as a lex specialis in such cases. Please refer your lawyers to BVerfG, 26. Januar 2005, Az. 1 BvR 1571/02, GRUR 2005, 410 – „Laufendes Auge“. I guess the logo is not registered as a design patent? Then there are no copyright-like restrictions on it. We use very many logos in the German wikipedia under this provision. The logo should also be in the PD anywhere else (except UK and other countries with sweat of the brow jurisdiction or provisions for "typographic copyright"), since it consists solely of design of letters, which is not copyrightable, see en:WP:PD#Fonts. --rtc 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

contrary to what you say, the logo is a registered trademark. This is not an argument to delete it though. However, the argument that it is not copyrightable does not seem to be widely accepted. And definitly not accepted by TUM. Anthere 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I was talking about w:design patent registration, not about w:trademark registration. I don't claim that the logo wasn't registered as a trademark. The argument about its copyrightability has been given in a very clear and unambigous wording by Germany's constitutional court; if it is not widely accepted then only because people don't know the decision. Please at least give the lawyer a hint about the decision I cited—I assume that he didn't know it. Further, I guess if TUM were explained the background of the PD status and that their interests are in no way affected by this status, then they wouldn't be so negative about the logo, if the trademark restrictions were pointed out more clearly on the logo's image description page. As a first step, and since we are using so many logos under this provision, I have suggested in the German wikipedia to change the logo template to include more explicit information about the PD status and said restrictions. It goes without saying that we shall respect your decisions, but I hope we can improve the situation for the other logos before it comes to further office actions. --rtc 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nod. All this is noted. Mindspillage will follow up on this, as she is more versed in legal considerations than myself. Best Anthere

Conférences grand-public à Rennes les 4,5,et 6juillet : s'il vous plait, venez !

Bonjour, La région Bretagne organise les "Etes TIC de Bretagne" les 4,5 et 6 juillet à Rennes. Michel Briand et moi sommes les principaux concepteurs du programme dans lequel le grand-public pourra gratuitement assister à trois conférences.

Voici les intervenants pressentis :

- WIKIPEDIA : le savoir par tous et pour tous -> Mme Nibart-Drouard responsable du board de Wikipedia (Monde)

- web 2.0 et journalisme citoyen -> Carlo Revelli (fondateur AGORAVOX)

- Les enjeux de la gouvernance de l'internet -> M.Benhamou, représentant de la France au sommet mondial de la société de l'information et à l'Internet Gouvernance Forum.

Sinon j'ai une conférence sur "Mondes virtuels/mondes réels : stratégies", avec des professeurs de San José fondateurs du projet Library 2.0 dans second life (500 professeurs actifs, 6 campus virtuels véritablement utilisés en contexte de cours dans les universités) mais il faut faire la conférence depuis second life et techniquement c'est peu fiable...Je vais tenter de la faire à Aix dans le cadre du séminaire upfing.

Pour avoir un aperçu des "Champs Libres" dans lesquels se trouve la grande salle de conférence : [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ortille/158917359/]

Je vous sollicite donc urgemment pour intervenir à la date du 5 juillet 2007 de 16h15 à 17h30.

Le reste du programme est en cours d'élaboration sur un wiki. Le programme s'articule autour d'une rencontre des laboratoires francophones de recherche sur les usages (notamment avec Serge Proulx), de rencontres sur l'économie du web 2.0 et de rencontres sur les pratiques collaboratives. Les rencontres ont lieu en matinée et 9 ateliers ont lieu les après midis des 4 et 5. Deux soirées (carrefour des possibles et projets innovants en Bretagne) sont programmés les 4 et 5 au soir.

Ce serait un véritable honneur pour nous que vous acceptiez de venir présenter Wikipédia lors d'une de nos conférences pleinières !

Au fait, permettez-moi de me présenter : http://www.web2bretagne.org/wiki/HugAubin.

commons:Commons_talk:Licensing#Pros_and_Cons

Bonjour Anthère,

• Le sujet est la "rule of shorter term", suivant laquelle quand une oeuvre artistique n'est plus protégée dans son pays de première publication, les pays signataires du traité de Berne le considèrent comme également domaine public, sauf disposition législative contraire.
• Les USA ayant été considérés comme n'applicant pas la "rule of shorter term", Commons n'admet pas de travaux tombés localement dans le domaine public avant la limite légale US.
• Suite à une contestation de ma part, j'ai souligné qu'il n'y avait pas de raison de dire que la "rule of shorter term" ne s'applique pas aux USA. La situation aux USA a été examinée un peu plus sérieusement, et la conclusion est ... qu'il n'y a rien de très conclusif ;o)
• Du coup, il y a un débat pour savoir l'attitude à adopter sur Commons, y compris la possibilité de risquer un procès aux USA...

Je pense qu'il vaut mieux que tu y jettes un oeil. Michelet-密是力 10:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Si tu as besoin d'éléments d'analyse ou de contexte, je suis plus facilement joignable sur fr:utilisateur:Michelet ou commons:user:Micheletb Michelet-密是力 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) et si tu es de passage à Paris on pourra toujours en discuter autour d'un pot - je n'ai guère l'occasion de passer à Clermont Ferrand :(

Having spoken with a member of Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. board it seems the best to communicate the consensus of the Wikimedia projects and especially of Commons via foundation-l to inform the WMF board about the opinion of the communities. For the small German Wikisource Community I can already communicate the clear consensus that the texts of authors like Karl Kraus or Kurt Tucholsky (which are as scanned books on Commons and as E-texts on German Wikisource) should remain on Wikimedia servers. The active users of Wikisource-de have voted for the option #3 in the "opinion section" on Commons. Best regards --Histo 14:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on Portuguese Wikisource is still ongoing, but apparently this is resulting on a consensus to keep all texts on this situation. All of these is going to receive a copyright disclaimer on their talk page (example) with instructions if a successor claims for copyright (the second paragraph of the header on s:pt:Wikisource:Violações de direitos autorais is specially devoted to it). The listing is still on the beginning, but in some weeks all talk pages from these problematic PD works can be listed on the category s:pt:Categoria:!Obras protegidas por direitos autorais nos Estados Unidos if in any time any emergency action is needed (but please, if Foundation receive any copyright claims on these works from pt.ws, send a friendly-warning before going to do some type of delete action, to make way to "move" from pt.ws to some external site). 555 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought there was an agreement. But apparently, there is not. I am not sure board members will agree on this topic anytime soon. I fear I will have no answer for you. I'll try to remember your warning 555, but usually, I am not the person doing the office action. You should mention it to Cary perhaps. Cheers Anthere 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lupo's analysis

Florence, the board's non-response you posted and removed at the commons makes me suspect that the board maybe didn't quite understand where the problem is. (Complying with the laws of all countries is probably not what anybody would want, we'd end up using the maximum of the Mexican term of 100 years after an author's death or of the U.S. term of 95 years since publication. That's excessive.)

Let me try to put together an executive summary:

The problem arises in the context of public domain works hosted on Wikimedia servers. The public domain is different in different countries: a work may be in the public domain in one country, but may still be copyrighted in another country. Because the U.S. does not implement the rule of the shorter term, foreign works that are in the public domain in many foreign countries where copyright expires 70 years after an author's death are still copyrighted in the U.S. (where a copyright term of 95 years since the first publication applies for works published before 1978), if they were still copyrighted in their foreign source country on January 1, 1996.

The rule of the shorter term is a non-mandatory provision in the Berne Convention saying that if the copyright on a work has expired in its source country, other countries are allowed to also consider the work to be in the public domain. Notwithstanding Michelet's rather singular opinion above, there is strong evidence that the U.S. does not implement this rule: the U.S. grants all eligible works the copyright exclusively under the U.S. copyright law.

The WMF and its servers are in the U.S. They are subject to U.S. law. It is believed that this means that any content hosted on Wikimedia servers must be legal to publish in the U.S.

The commons therefore has the policy (commons:Commons:Licensing) that works that are used without a license but under a "public domain" claim must be in the public domain in both the source country of the work and in the U.S. However, as one can see, any attempt to enforce that policy is highly unpopular.

People would prefer to apply only the law of the source country, ignoring U.S. law for non-U.S. works. The dispute is ultimately about whether this is allowed.

Since public domain works are not licensed, the licensing resolution doesn't help at all to resolve that question.

The problem does not only affect the Commons, but also all the other Wikimedia projects, in particular the non-English ones. As I understand it, local projects would like to apply only their local laws, ignoring U.S. copyright law with its rather inconvenient copyright restorations.

This gives rise to a set of questions that the Board should seek to answer in a resolution on minimum requirements for hosting.

1. Is it true that any content hosted on Wikimedia servers must be legal to publish in the U.S.?

   If the answer to that question is "no", we can stop right there. Local non-English Wikimedia projects could decide to apply only their local foreign laws, ignoring U.S. law, and the Commons could also change its public domain requirements to consider only the law of the source country. (For the commons, however, there'd still be the problem that e.g. an image that was in the public domain only in Switzerland could be hosted, but couldn't be used on any other Wikimedia project.) The commons would still need to tag images better to avoid that such "claimed public domain" images were used on projects where these images are not in the public domain under the local laws, but that's a perennial problem that we already have.

   If the answer is "yes":

2. May local non-English Wikimedia projects still make an exception to that rule by applying only their local laws?

   I don't know if that'd even be possible. Maybe one could argue that since such non-English projects are clearly targeted at non-U.S. markets, the fact that the servers are in the U.S. is incidental and of no importance, and that the non-English projects may use the laws of their target countries instead. But again, I have no idea whether that'd be sound. Note, however, that if such an exception is not possible, there might be an increased incentive to fork for local projects, using servers based in their jurisdiction.

3. Confirm whether or not the WMF (and thus the Wikimedia projects) considers the U.S. to apply the rule of the shorter term.

   If the WMF is prepared to defend the argument that the U.S. would need to apply that rule (following maybe Michelet's reasoning, for which there is no external confirmation, though), local projects again could operate basically under their local laws, and the commons also could consider only the source country of a "public domain" work. Otherwise, local projects (and the commons for "public domain" works) need to apply at least the local laws plus the U.S. copyright law. Take note of William F. Patry's comments on the U.S. and the rule of the shorter term.

4. Is the Commons' rule for public domain works "a work must be in the public domain in its source country and in the U.S." good enough?

   Or does the Board really want the Commons to apply the rule "the work must be in the public domain in all countries"? Careful there; see above. The commons would also no longer be able to host pre-1923 U.S. works (which are not in the public domain in some other countries), it could no longer host many reproductions of old art (Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't apply everywhere), it couldn't host U.S. governmental works anymore (may in theory be copyrighted outside the U.S.), and so on. (I really don't think you'd want that.)

I truly think the WMF should clarify these points in a resolution on hosting. I know the WMF has traditionally avoided giving concrete guidelines, but as the operator of the servers and as the service provider, the WMF should at the very least have some very basic guidelines as to what content it is legally prepared to host.

It is clear to me that these are difficult questions that should not be decided without qualified legal advice. (The "choice of law" problem for copyright on the Internet, is, AFAIK, still subject to intense debate by scholars.) But eventually, the WMF should decide what its policies on these matters are.

As an interim solution, I personally (if I were on the Board) would push for a binding resolution requiring all projects to identify and tag "public domain" content they host that is not in the public domain in the U.S. since the U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term. This basically concerns all those foreign works that were still copyrighted in their source country (or source countries) on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most countries.

I would (were I a Board member) also continue to push for actually getting these issues sorted out properly, and then to have them published in a Board resolution.

I hope you don't consider my comments here presumptuous. If the Board should have been aware of all this, I humbly ask you to accept my apology for having had doubts. If the Board thinks this was completely wrong and the WMF should not make any statement on these matters, I ask you to forgive my ignorance. (Though in that latter case, I'd like to be told why. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the function and purpose of the WMF.)

Cheers, Lupo 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot a couple of things. A clarification of these issues does not only affect post-1922 works of authors who died after 1926. It also affects a great many more works (or images, or images of works).

• Freedom of panorama is an exception in the copyright laws of many countries that says that taking and publishing a photograph of a copyrighted (three-dimensional) artwork (such as a building, a sculpture, or a statue) is not an infringement of the copyright of the depicted artwork if that artwork is permanently installed in a public place. The U.S. copyright law recognizes this "freedom of panorama" only for buildings, but not for works of the visual arts (sculptures, statues). The Commons currently hosts such images, including images of statues located in countries where "freedom of panorama" applies (although the policy applied is unclear and inconsistent, see this extended discussion). So do many local non-English projects where their domestic laws allow it. If U.S. copyright law must be strictly applied, no Wikimedia project could use any photograph of a copyrighted sculpture or statue because publishing the photo would not be ok under U.S. copyright law. (Photos of buildings would be fine.) Except, of course, if the depicted work itself was freely licensed (highly unlikely), or the copyright holder agrees to freely licensing the photo (rare, but doable is some cases), or if local projects can set up EDPs to allow such images. The Commons, being barred from EDPs, could not host such images.
• If U.S. copyright law must be strictly applied, all those PD-country tags that have proliferated across the various projects would need to state under what conditions works would also be in the public domain in the U.S., and works using such country-specific tags would need to be checked. A lot of work! Most existing PD-country tags only make a statement about the country they are about (see e.g. PD-Israel). Very few mention the U.S. status of the works, PD-Russia is an exception. But even there, the 1942/1946 U.S. date is generally ignored; people go by the 1954 date. At the English Wikipedia, others have tried to add similar notices to the country-specific "public domain" tags, see e.g. PD-Poland or PD-Italy. (At the English WP, there can IMO be no question about it: U.S. copyright law always applies.)

Sorry for the long posts. There are probably more examples like these two. Consider this just background information to better evaluate what the context of the problem is and what impact any statement might have. And again, please forgive my naiveness if the Board should already have been aware of all this. Cheers, Lupo 13:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear Lupo.

Your comments certainly are not presumptuous. You are perfectly right in my sense to ask this question. What happened is that three board members clearly stated they wanted 1, and Erik boldly stated that 1 was absolutely NOT a good idea. Others did not comment. So... what I intend to do is to draft a resolution on the topic, and see where we can go on this. If the board generally considers that we can host content which is illegal in the USA, I want it to be clearly stated, as I believe we would be held accountable in such situation. If the board generally thinks we should stay on the safe side, I want that to be clearly stated as well and clarified for the community. If the board decides to play blind, I want that to be equally stated. So, I thank you very much for the summary above (yes, I did not understand things quite well), and I will invite formally board members to express a position on the matter. It might take time, but I do not think it is a very big deal to take time to make this decision. My main concern is that I want a lawyer to formally look at that, and this might take time as well. Best Anthere 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is pretty much what I had in mind, too. Remains the question of what to do in the "playing blind" case ;-) I'm quite aware that all this may take time, and also that the Board has lots of other things to do, so I appreciate your willingness to take this issue aboard even more. Lupo 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Having slept over this, and having seen the thread at foundation-l (inexplicably entitled "PD-Israel", it had escaped me) I think question #4 is indeed something the community could decide for itself once the WMF has defined the absolute bounds of what is allowed. But as I wrote elsewhere already, questions #1 to #3 are different from the usual disputes over license tagging. Quarrels over, say, PD-Soviet ;-), and similar stuff are just attempts by the community to define within the allowable limits what it wants to consider free content. (I notice that freedomdefined.org declares "for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture Licenses or be in the public domain", without defining "public domain", and neither does the licensing resolution.) But questions #1 to #3 are not about what we want to do. They are about what we have to do in order to be able to do what we want (publishing free knowledge). Lupo 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(How's that for a tag line: "Free knowledge for everyone!" :-) Whether "free" is an adjective or a verb is anyone's choice. And now I'll shut up and let you do your business.) Lupo 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I like that one ;o) Michelet-密是力 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Unfortunately, the pun doesn't translate very well. Maybe just "Knowledge for everyone" would be better. Or maybe "The power of knowledge" — that one might be quite appropriate if the foundation should be able to find a creative solution to the conundrum all this discussion is about. Lupo 09:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

One for all. All for one. Oh, I have another one We know. ant.

Consensus is not evil

There was a clear consensus on Commons that WMF should not take office action before have cleared the legal issues by an US court. It seems that it might be that the stuff in question is illegal but there is no court decision on the rule of the shorter term yet. There are some things which should be free (not only 10 things as suggested by Jimbo Wales). If the works were made by US citizen according the now valid 70 years pma term they would be free, and they are free in nearly all other countries. --Histo 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)