Agenda talk:2023-06-21
[Comunity report(s)] Detect violations of GFDL and GFDL in WMF projects
Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board know about the existence of the following documents and their content?:
P.S.: Reports were reported to legal@wikimedia.org.
Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jimbo Wales, @Pundit, @Rosiestep, @Victoria, @Laurentius, @Mike Peel and @Shani (WMF): Hello.
I would like you, the members Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, to know that these reports exist. These reports list license violations that occur in projects managed by WMF. Those reports concern one of the three essential elements of the movement – community content (the other two essentials are wiki "blogging software" software and language cross-links). Confirming the correctness of my results will have consequences that will require software modifications and will also have an impact on the user – e.g. apparently the demise of dual licensing, to solve the embedding of other licensed content in articles (such as embedded images); and also a question, how about license violations – Deleting "illegal" content? Obtain consent from users? Or to fix the inadvertent violation as soon as possible so that this error state does not persist? Or support a better chance of getting a lawsuit from the user regarding license violations? In a way, it is also a "damage to the brand" of the movement or projects?
Shouldn't this licensing disagreement, which is about the core (hinting at one of the three elements) have a high priority to resolve? Is it right to postpone taking the steps necessary to solve the matter, when they will "have to" be done anyway? What "message" do you want to pass on to the community in handling this "problem"?
P.S.: All questions in the text are rhetorical.
- P.P.S.: Sorry if someone received a wrong email from me (I know of one confirmed case). Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)