Mailing List Archive

Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the
watermark.

- Chris

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hoi,
> As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always,
> come
> up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
> extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule;
> Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>
>
> > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP
> > states that this should not occur.
> >
> > - Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
> > >
> > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
> > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an
image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue?

regards

mark

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down
<neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the
> watermark.
>
> - Chris
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always,
> > come
> > up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
> > extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule;
> > Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>
> >
> > > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user.
> IUP
> > > states that this should not occur.
> > >
> > > - Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> > > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
> > > >
> > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
> > > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png

-Robert Rohde

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
<newsmarkie@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an
> image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue?
>
> regards
>
> mark
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down
> <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the
>> watermark.
>>
>> - Chris
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> > As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always,
>> > come
>> > up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
>> > extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule;
>> > Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>
>> >
>> > > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user.
>> IUP
>> > > states that this should not occur.
>> > >
>> > > - Chris
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <
>> thomas.dalton@gmail.com
>> > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
>> > > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
>> > > >
>> > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
>> > > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > foundation-l mailing list
>> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > foundation-l mailing list
>> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thanks

seems to me that they are on images which they own copyright on, so maybe
its just that the files theyve used were from an online version or
something?

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
> <newsmarkie@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of
> an
> > image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue?
> >
> > regards
> >
> > mark
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down
> > <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without
> the
> >> watermark.
> >>
> >> - Chris
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> >> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As
> always,
> >> > come
> >> > up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
> >> > extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule;
> >> > Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > GerardM
> >> >
> >> > 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>
> >> >
> >> > > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user.
> >> IUP
> >> > > states that this should not occur.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Chris
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> >> thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> >> > > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist
> there.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't
> means
> >> > > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> > > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.

- Chris

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
> <newsmarkie@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of
> an
> > image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue?
> >
> > regards
> >
> > mark
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down
> > <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without
> the
> >> watermark.
> >>
> >> - Chris
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> >> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As
> always,
> >> > come
> >> > up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
> >> > extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule;
> >> > Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > GerardM
> >> >
> >> > 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>
> >> >
> >> > > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user.
> >> IUP
> >> > > states that this should not occur.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Chris
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> >> thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> >> > > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist
> there.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't
> means
> >> > > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> > > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

well if they/john bought the image rights then they would own it, meaning
that the credit is sufficient as it is.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Chris Down
<neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>wrote:

> That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
>
> - Chris
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
> >
> > -Robert Rohde
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
> > <newsmarkie@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example
> of
> > an
> > > image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue?
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > > mark
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down
> > > <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without
> > the
> > >> watermark.
> > >>
> > >> - Chris
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > >> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hoi,
> > >> > As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As
> > always,
> > >> > come
> > >> > up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
> > >> > extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other
> "rule;
> > >> > Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > GerardM
> > >> >
> > >> > 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>
> > >> >
> > >> > > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the
> user.
> > >> IUP
> > >> > > states that this should not occur.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Chris
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> > >> thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> > >> > > >wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> > >> > > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist
> > there.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't
> > means
> > >> > > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > >> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > >> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >> > >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > foundation-l mailing list
> > >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
<neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com> wrote:
> That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
>
> - Chris

The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page
where it is used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Appendixes/Reader%E2%80%99s_Guide_to_Wikipedia#Picture_of_the_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fujisan_from_Motohakone.jpg

-Robert

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Okay, I'll move it to the image description page soon if someone hasn't done
it already.

- Chris

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
> <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
> >
> > - Chris
>
> The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page
> where it is used:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Appendixes/Reader%E2%80%99s_Guide_to_Wikipedia#Picture_of_the_Day
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fujisan_from_Motohakone.jpg
>
> -Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
>
>> Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
>> special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
>>
> We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
> Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
>
>
I don't think that IAR is even needed for this when you take into
account that it's going into the Help: namespace.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/28 effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
>
>> Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
>> Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
>> agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
>>
>> Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?
>>
> While it could be copied, I'm not sure there is much point having it
> duplicated - it just means any improvements need to be made twice. It
> could be moved to Wikibooks and then Wikipedia could link/redirect to
> it, that might make the most sense.
>
>
I suppose it could also be copied into Wikisource as a static copy where
changes would not be allowed.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/28 geni:
>
>> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
>> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>>
> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
> case?
>
> The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without
> inventing extra problems!
>
>
LOL. I sometimes think that we have some people who live and breathe for
the sole purpose of inventing extra problems. :-)

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:

> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced,
> it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright
> owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get).

Ha, that clause. I'd forgotten about it.

Even so, I think we can reasonably not worry ourselves overly. The
author has consented to publish it under the GFDL as normal when he
uploaded it to enwp, right? You have to split hairs very fine to
distinguish between:

a) Author uploads own work, chooses to license the "new copy" of it
under license X.

b) Author uploads own work *as licensed copy* of material previously
published elsewhere, and must be treated as such.

Which is to say, if you look hard you have a point, but there's a
perfectly legitimate interpretation going the other way, which
complies with the letter just as well and the spirit perhaps better!

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
> fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
> giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning
> to blog about this in more detail soon. Please do show them some love
> for doing this; it's obviously highly unusual and very nice. :-)

But, so far, not that unusual for books about Wikipedia! ;)

> O'Reilly took the initiative to release the book under a free license,
> and we've encouraged it - but we don't have any formal agreement with
> them that it ought to be posted on Wikipedia. That's a community
> decision, and neither we nor O'Reilly would want it to be any other
> way. My personal take is that it should live where it's most likely to
> be used and maintained, and regardless of its dead tree origins, the
> help section of en.wp seems to be a pretty logical place. But that's
> just my take - in future, we are also considering to set up a
> dedicated portal with various learning resources for wiki newbies,
> where static copies could live.
>
> Erik

I'm clearly not unbiased in the matter, but it seems to me that it
would make sense to have it at Wikibooks, since it's a complete work
that can stand alone. It's also, of course, not the only book about
Wikipedia, and I think we were planning to put "How Wikipedia Works"
on Wikibooks eventually.* Clearly these books should be close to
Wikipedia and well-linked from there, but I'm not sure they should
actually be *on* Wikipedia.

It makes sense to me to make an area with all sorts of multilingual
learning resources in all sorts of formats as well, like Erik
suggests. Currently on the English Wikipedia there is the out of the
way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Instructional_material, but
this needs to be greatly improved. I'd be glad to work on a project to
do so.

-- phoebe

* this hasn't happened mostly because I've been busy this winter.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/30 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>:
> 2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
>
>> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
>> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
>> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
>> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced,
>> it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright
>> owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get).
>
> Ha, that clause. I'd forgotten about it.
>
> Even so, I think we can reasonably not worry ourselves overly. The
> author has consented to publish it under the GFDL as normal when he
> uploaded it to enwp, right? You have to split hairs very fine to
> distinguish between:
>
> a) Author uploads own work, chooses to license the "new copy" of it
> under license X.
>
> b) Author uploads own work *as licensed copy* of material previously
> published elsewhere, and must be treated as such.
>
> Which is to say, if you look hard you have a point, but there's a
> perfectly legitimate interpretation going the other way, which
> complies with the letter just as well and the spirit perhaps better!

While the spirit is clearly would allow us to relicense it (assuming
the person that actually uploaded it is the sole copyright owner - the
publishing company/editor might own some of the rights, I don't know
how such things work), my reading of the letter of the license would
say it's very clearly not allowed.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced,
> it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright
> owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get).
>
>

I think this merits the question: would it be only necessary
to accede to the relicensing? Or would it be necessary to also
ask them to abide by any new terms of use of the site that
would exceed the minimal requirements of the CC-BY-SA license?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
>> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
>> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
>> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced,
>> it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright
>> owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get).
>>
>>
>
> I think this merits the question: would it be only necessary
> to accede to the relicensing? Or would it be necessary to also
> ask them to abide by any new terms of use of the site that
> would exceed the minimal requirements of the CC-BY-SA license?

If there are additional terms then the whole relicensing is null and
void, so this book would be the least of our worries. Any other
content brought in from other sources would have to be deleted or the
copyright owner contacted to give permission.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l