Mailing List Archive

On 11/21/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux@free.fr> wrote:
[snip]
> There's apparently a big misunderstanding here ; please consider reading
> m:ESA_images .

I responded to your in depth on wikipedia-l, hopefully to reduce the
forest fire...

I wanted to comment publicly, however, that I think it is very unfair
of you to respond twice to me... One, your public reply, is more
friendly and the second your private reply far more aggressive.

I would not deny you the opportunity to respond with at least as much
intensity as I directed towards you, but if you maintain politeness in
public while making personal attacks my response will be to simply
begin forwarding your private messages to the list(s) prior to reading
them so the other parties will not fault me for being the more
aggressive party in the discussion.

Allow me to apologise for jumping right in with strong words after
your first message. I understand this is a matter which you have
spent much on, and I do appreciate much of the work you have done. I
hope you can understand why I might respond harshly to someone I've
previously debated on the importance of keeping our content free, when
he posts to the lists making what I saw to be a terribly unfair
argument.

Do you agree that it is unfair to compare the protection of our
trademarked logo to images of astronauts at work?

Do you agree that it is unfair to claim that the ESA is different from
NASA because the ESA uses contractors, when NASA also extensively uses
contractors?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I wanted to comment publicly, however, that I think it is very unfair
of you to respond twice to me... One, your public reply, is more
friendly and the second your private reply far more aggressive.

Ok, just so that everyone is informed. I wrote to Greg, after his answer to my first message, which I considered insulted my intelligence :

< Apart from that, I would be glad if you would not use formulas such as
"your argument is seriously lacking in consistency". Given that you
have attacked essentially a straw man throughout your message (from
lack of knowledge of the issues), this sounded like a rather
pretentious judgment. Richard Stallman can get away with that kind of
things because he's Richard Stallman, but you're not. >

I may have been excessive here, but let me tell you an anecdote.

I've done political... let's say, lobbying, for lack of better words, on questions of copyright and computing. I've had to deal with people in my own camp (those supporting free software and the like) whose intellectual rigidity, in my view, really hampered our final goals.

I remember for instance a guy (whom I'll leave unnamed) that interrupted me when I was talking with a member of the board of administrators of [[SACEM]] (the French society of authors and composers) and proposed to the guy that artists, authors etc. should be funded by worldwide sponsoring and that copyright should be abolished. He then went on to quote Richard M. Stallman.

Regardless of whether abolishing copyright is a good idea, this means of action was stupid:
* Very few artists know RMS. Citing him won't help one bit, or, rather, it conveys the idea that he is some kind of guru of a cult.
* Proposing radically different things to people just frightens them and then shuts their mind to some intermediate proposals going in the right direction.

End of the anecdote, which I think makes for an interesting parallel:

Most people we're dealing with in the "real world" don't know what "free" as in "free software means".
What we propose to them is radically outside their frame of mind.

Some of these people are willing to take steps in our direction (we may even get help... er.. prodding them in the right direction). If we rigidly refuse to take some steps on our own, I think everything will fail : we will not get free content, and we won't even get nearly free content.

-- DM

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/21/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux@free.fr> wrote:
[snip]
> Most people we're dealing with in the "real world" don't know what "free" as in "free software means".
> What we propose to them is radically outside their frame of mind.
[snip]

But I'm talking to *you* and the members of the various lists
copied... Not to the general public, I would use different language
and perhaps a different argument altogether with a differing audience.

When I pointed out that material related to the ESA should be Free I
wasn't attempting to make some grand argument about freedom, but
rather a more pragmatic reflection on the nature of space programs:
They aren't in business to generate pretty pictures, their work is
done (largely) with public monies, and as part of science the entire
world should be able to learn and benefit from their work in many ways
without discrimination. This is the same line of thinking which has
inspired statements like Jimmy's ten things that should be free
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_movement#Wikimedia which,
btw, is an article that needs help.. that whole section is out of
place).

I would have elaborated more on my perspective, but from prior
discussions with you I didn't expect to sway you... rather I just
wanted to respond quickly before people were swayed by your
comparisons of logos to informative images, and claims that the US is
worlds apart from the rest of the world.

...I was honestly quite insulted by your off-list email, but I
understand what drove it, and I forgive you.

Thanks
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/21/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux@free.fr> wrote:
[snip]
> Most people we're dealing with in the "real world" don't know what "free" as in "free software means".
> What we propose to them is radically outside their frame of mind.
[snip]

But I'm talking to *you* and the members of the various lists
copied... Not to the general public, I would use different language
and perhaps a different argument altogether with a differing audience.

When I pointed out that material related to the ESA should be Free I
wasn't attempting to make some grand argument about freedom, but
rather a more pragmatic reflection on the nature of space programs:
They aren't in business to generate pretty pictures, their work is
done (largely) with public monies, and as part of science the entire
world should be able to learn and benefit from their work in many ways
without discrimination. This is the same line of thinking which has
inspired statements like Jimmy's ten things that should be free
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_movement#Wikimedia which,
btw, is an article that needs help.. that whole section is out of
place).

I would have elaborated more on my perspective, but from prior
discussions with you I didn't expect to sway you... rather I just
wanted to respond quickly before people were swayed by your
comparisons of logos to informative images, and claims that the US is
worlds apart from the rest of the world.

...I was honestly quite insulted by your off-list email, but I
understand what drove it, and I forgive you.

Thanks
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
> When I pointed out that material related to the ESA should be Free I
> wasn't attempting to make some grand argument about freedom, but
> rather a more pragmatic reflection on the nature of space programs:
> They aren't in business to generate pretty pictures,
That's exactly one of the problems. Since their line of work is building
launchers and the like,
they've largely off-loaded the tasks of taking pictures and maintaining
pictures databases to
external contractors. Also, since their job is not to provide a database
of pictures free for
advertisers to use, they buy the rights to these pictures from the
external contractors only for
information and education purposes. Buying them for all possible
commercial uses, even if
possible, would be more costly and wouldn't be in their scope of work.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/21/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:

> What are the odds of getting interested Wikipedians in to take the
> pictures instead? Contractors cost money, getting pictures taken for
> free in exchange for free licensing seems like a better deal for ESA.
> Lest one is concerned about amateur-quality work, I suspect that if ESA
> were to publicly announce inside access for ten photographers, unpaid
> but credited by name, they would have more than enough applications to
> be able to accept only the best.

Right, I am not soooo sure that the ESA (or any other organisation,
NASA included, for that matter) will let any random Wikipedian hop on
the next satellite to take pictures of <insert name of planet here>.
I'd love too, but hey, I don't think this is going to happen any time
soon.

I believe you will also understand the importance of monitoring what
pictures get in and out concerning satellites, space shuttles and
other highly technological objects.

>
> I also think WP could do more to cynically play on European chauvinism
> than it has so far. 1/2 :-) A public statement by Jimbo, saying
> something like "we will not accept unfree ESA images in WP, and while we
> don't want WP to present a US-only view of space exploration, it's up to
> the Europeans to fix this", would likely get reported widely, and
> hopefully put some pressure on ESA to change what is at best a sloppy
> practice.

Let us not jump to conclusions too fast here. :-)
What you call "European chauvinism" I will rather call "lack of
means", "lack of human ressources to write the right contracts with
the n number of national laws involved in the launching of this or
that satellite and the building of this or that camera" etc. There are
reasons for the ESA and other organisations not being able to release
their pictures under a free license and they go far beyond a manichean
"good people who release in the public domain what they produce with
public money" vs "bad people who want to keep stuff for themselves". I
don't think "pressure" as you put it, is the way to go.

Let me also try to maybe tone down the questions that David was trying
to get through here and give a different angle.

The question is not that the ESA or these other organisations *do not*
want to release their pictures for a wider use. As a matter of fact,
it is the ESA who came to us (Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia
France) and asked us for advice on how to go about this, and how they
could make their pictures (more) freely available. However, they have
some conditions.

Some of our licenses (the one I use, for example) also add conditions
(CC-BY-SA - share alike is a pretty drastic condition, when you think
about it).

One of their condition is that those images can't be used for
political propaganda, for example.

Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider
that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence
of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in
our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any
way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something
we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about
this.

To bounce on something David said, there is much work to do in the
evangelisation of those organisations, and a lot to explain about the
pros and the cons of "free material". Most of their objections need to
be understood in the light of what these organisations can do (with
the restrictions that apply to them) and what they want to do. My take
is that what they "want to do" can easily be changed, by patient,
pedagogic and comprehensive explanations. What they "can do" is then
another story altogether.

What I understand David was trying to say here is that maybe there is
a mid-term agreement that can be reached, somewhere along the path.
Are the Organisation X images worth us being just a tad less free (no
political use of the images), are they not? It's a difficult question,
but one that is worth debating.

One thing I am certain of is that saying "Organisation X must change
their ways" is definitely not the right answer. I'd much rather have a
stance that goes "How can we make organisation X change their way for
everyone's best interest?"

Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/21/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:

> What are the odds of getting interested Wikipedians in to take the
> pictures instead? Contractors cost money, getting pictures taken for
> free in exchange for free licensing seems like a better deal for ESA.
> Lest one is concerned about amateur-quality work, I suspect that if ESA
> were to publicly announce inside access for ten photographers, unpaid
> but credited by name, they would have more than enough applications to
> be able to accept only the best.

Right, I am not soooo sure that the ESA (or any other organisation,
NASA included, for that matter) will let any random Wikipedian hop on
the next satellite to take pictures of <insert name of planet here>.
I'd love too, but hey, I don't think this is going to happen any time
soon.

I believe you will also understand the importance of monitoring what
pictures get in and out concerning satellites, space shuttles and
other highly technological objects.

>
> I also think WP could do more to cynically play on European chauvinism
> than it has so far. 1/2 :-) A public statement by Jimbo, saying
> something like "we will not accept unfree ESA images in WP, and while we
> don't want WP to present a US-only view of space exploration, it's up to
> the Europeans to fix this", would likely get reported widely, and
> hopefully put some pressure on ESA to change what is at best a sloppy
> practice.

Let us not jump to conclusions too fast here. :-)
What you call "European chauvinism" I will rather call "lack of
means", "lack of human ressources to write the right contracts with
the n number of national laws involved in the launching of this or
that satellite and the building of this or that camera" etc. There are
reasons for the ESA and other organisations not being able to release
their pictures under a free license and they go far beyond a manichean
"good people who release in the public domain what they produce with
public money" vs "bad people who want to keep stuff for themselves". I
don't think "pressure" as you put it, is the way to go.

Let me also try to maybe tone down the questions that David was trying
to get through here and give a different angle.

The question is not that the ESA or these other organisations *do not*
want to release their pictures for a wider use. As a matter of fact,
it is the ESA who came to us (Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia
France) and asked us for advice on how to go about this, and how they
could make their pictures (more) freely available. However, they have
some conditions.

Some of our licenses (the one I use, for example) also add conditions
(CC-BY-SA - share alike is a pretty drastic condition, when you think
about it).

One of their condition is that those images can't be used for
political propaganda, for example.

Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider
that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence
of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in
our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any
way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something
we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about
this.

To bounce on something David said, there is much work to do in the
evangelisation of those organisations, and a lot to explain about the
pros and the cons of "free material". Most of their objections need to
be understood in the light of what these organisations can do (with
the restrictions that apply to them) and what they want to do. My take
is that what they "want to do" can easily be changed, by patient,
pedagogic and comprehensive explanations. What they "can do" is then
another story altogether.

What I understand David was trying to say here is that maybe there is
a mid-term agreement that can be reached, somewhere along the path.
Are the Organisation X images worth us being just a tad less free (no
political use of the images), are they not? It's a difficult question,
but one that is worth debating.

One thing I am certain of is that saying "Organisation X must change
their ways" is definitely not the right answer. I'd much rather have a
stance that goes "How can we make organisation X change their way for
everyone's best interest?"

Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Stan Shebs a écrit :
> But those external contractors aren't on the satellite either - I
> suppose there is an interesting legal question as to ownership of the
> raw bits coming from an onboard camera, vs the final processed image. My
There's also a question of the ownership of the raw bits from some
particularly complex instruments. The researcher or institute who made
the instrument may have rights.

> kind of a special license at some point. But the ESA really does risk
> their legacy vanishing in the same way that much copyrighted material
> from the 20th century is vanishing - would European taxpayers be OK with
> that if they knew it was going on?
>
European taxpayers have more urgent issues, like crime, unemployment and
the like.
Expect nothing grassroot.

>
> one or another agenda, so with an ESA limitation on political
> propaganda, satellite-produced maps of ocean temperature and such would
> have to come from NASA - and in these partisan days, would you want to
> trust them as a sole source?
>
It's not so much political propaganda that they don't want, but
political *advertisements*. Things like using images of Ariane rockets
during the campaign for the proposed European constitution.

This is very different from using photos in a biased article. The
difference is that in the article, at least they try to base themselves
on the fact, and that with the advertisement they want to use the *image*.

ESA and CNES simply don't want their image associated with partisan
politics, or with any brand name, because taxpayer-funded institutions
cannot appear to advertise in favor of brand names nor, worse, in a
partisan way in politics.

(We may have got an interesting case of false cognate here - in French,
"propagande électorale" is the legal term for the leaflets and other
documents that are officially sent by all parties before elections.)
> I'm a little skeptical of the interim agreement idea, because that's
> exactly how we got so infested with bogus fair use images.
The problem, I think, is that fair use is very vaguely defined and that
use of fair use images doesn't require the agreement of the publishers
of the image, but only the legally creative mind of an uploader.

What I suggest is drafting a license, CC-like, with very specific
conditions. We would accept such kinds of licenses only in cases where
there's a rationale for it (by mail to OTRS). This should prevent
spurious use.


Regards,
-- DM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 21/11/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux@free.fr> wrote:

> What I suggest is drafting a license, CC-like, with very specific
> conditions. We would accept such kinds of licenses only in cases where
> there's a rationale for it (by mail to OTRS). This should prevent
> spurious use.


I'm still utterly, utterly unconvinced of the need for such
appeasement. In the case of space agencies that release everything as
PD, what harm has releasing everything as PD actually done them? Can
ESA answer that question?


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l