body:
> knowing any of those languages, I really think you should.
> I'd love to see such a thing, and would happily learn it,
> especially if it means people will stop trying to convince
> me to learn Python.

Hey Chad, you should learn Python some day! :)

Domas


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Search activation

body:
I've activated the Lucene search now on the following wikis:

enwiki enwiktionary enwikiquote enwikibooks enwikinews
dewiki dewiktionary dewikiquote dewikibooks dewikinews dewikiversity
eowiki eowiktionary eowikiquote eowikibooks
ruwiki ruwiktionary ruwikibooks ruwikiquote
sourceswiki metawiki sep11wiki foundationwiki commonswiki specieswiki
grantswiki

Will add the rest shortly, though probably with non-ideal configurations.

I've added Image: and Category: namespaces to the default search set on
Commons.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050514/61819bb2/attachment.pgp>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>geni said:
>
>
>>On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ray Saintonge said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>should review the four criteria
>>>>for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>>>
>>>
>>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
>>state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
>>
>>
>
>Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
>legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
>non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
>
>
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.  UK courts take the
view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications.  For
example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they
would not be able to sue in UK courts.

-Mark


from_name: Michael Plasmeier

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41

body:
help

 -Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:56 PM
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41

Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
	wikien-l at Wikipedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Ray Saintonge)
   2. Re: RE: Corrected (Ray Saintonge)
   3. Re: RE: Corrected (Tony Sidaway)
   4. Re: RE: Corrected (Tony Sidaway)
   5. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway)
   6. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway)
   7. Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected (Fastfission)
   8. Re: RE: Corrected (Delirium)
   9. Re: RE: Corrected (Skyring)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 07:44:26 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42860ECA.7010908 at telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

David Gerard wrote:

>Phil Boswell (phil.boswell at gmail.com) [050513 18:42]:
>
>
>>Unless I'm very much mistaken, the idea of constructing an encyclopaedia
is
>>to gather together crumbs of information that individually are not
>>particularly helpful to construct a whole which is.
>>There seems to be a group of people who are intent on pulling out the
centre
>>of the loaf, leaving just the crust which will then implode under its own
>>weight.
>>The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he can't deserve an
>>article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be addressed before we
turn
>>into just a list of people *everybody* knows about already.
>>
>>
>That's what I mean by "immune system turning into autoimmune disease".
>
>I also find the argument that Wollmann's article was VFDed therefore we
>must purge all mention of him to be utterly unconvincing.
>
>
The add thing about this is that the article about Wollmann could be a
vehicle for some objective facts in the matter.  That's better than
finding things piecemeal on the mailing list.

Ec

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 08:21:22 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: minorityreport at bluebottle.com, English Wikipedia
	<wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42861772.1010905 at telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Ray Saintonge said:
>
>
>>should review the four criteria
>>for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>
>>
>Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>
The four criteria  provide an objective and accessible framework for
evaluating fair use.  This does not mean that we are imposing US law.
If you can point to criteria from elsewhere that accomplish the same
thing, that would be fine too.

Ec

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:53:48 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<42197.62.252.0.4.1116096828.squirrel at happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Skyring said:
>
> What sort of payouts have been involved?

Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed.  One serial
plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD
8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:55:56 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<53573.62.252.0.4.1116096956.squirrel at happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

geni said:
> On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> Ray Saintonge said:
>> > should review the four criteria
>> > for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>
>> Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>
>
> The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
> state and the laws of the US federal goverment.

Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:00:50 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<12610.62.252.0.4.1116097250.squirrel at happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Ray Saintonge said:
>>
> Interesting observation.  Whatever the merits of their cases
> Scientology  is probably in a much better position than Wollmann when
> it comes to the  experience and funding needed to carry on a suit.
> Maybe that experience  has also taught them when not to sue. ;-)
>

They tend to sue under the laws of copyright and trade secrets. Their
lawsuits do seem to be counter-productive, but the effect on the defendant
is usually disproportionately brutal.

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:06:14 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<39539.62.252.0.4.1116097574.squirrel at happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Ray Saintonge said:
>>
> If both parties fail to appear the case
> would be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
>

Yes, he'd need to retain and brief counsel to prepare and present a pro
forma complaint alongside evidence to satisfy the court. He'd have to
ensure that the defendant was served.  He wouldn't have to show up in
court.

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 15:43:09 -0400
From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <98dd099a05051412431a2bc1b4 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Like how exactly? How would a picture of Mickey be used in any
> other way than to illustrate an article about animated characters
> or Disney?

Fair use is for commentary and criticism. In an ideal form, a
Wikipedia article with photos of Mickey might count as "commentary".
There is also the question of whether or not we would be using it in a
way which deprives Disney of any income, which is more open to
interpretation, and the question of whether or not someone visiting
Wikipedia would be confused as to whether or not it was affiliated
with Disney ("Sure," the lawyers say, "it says Wikipedia up in the
corner. But it says 'Mickey Mouse' at the top of the page, and then
goes on to describe it in an authoratative manner, with copyrighted
images all over the place!"). Are we using it as a commentary on
Mickey Mouse or just using it to illustrate and describe Mickey Mouse?
As I understand it, "fair use" does not necessarily apply if you just
want to illustrate an encyclopedia article on a subject, whether you
charge for it or not.

Images are a much more difficult media to deal with than is text. Text
can be easily re-written or paraphrased and be a legally distinct new
form. Images are more difficult, and the way the courts rule can be
highly arbitrary (viz. the cases at
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.htm
l#3).

Let's move beyond Disney and to another pet peeve of mine: historical
images by news corporations. For example, the wonderful image of Bryan
and Darrow at [[Scopes Trial]]. Iconic image, very famous! But also
likely owned by a stock photography company, i.e. Corbis or Getty
Images. These guys make their entire income on licensing pictures and
asserting their copyright on them -- Wikipedia "giving them away for
free" seems like it would definitely fall into a questionable
category. Is it "commentary" on the copyrighted work itself, or are we
just using it to illustrate an article?

 > One of WP's most useful defenses is to become even more popular
> and respected. We want to be in a position where all the judges
> in the building have to recuse themselves because they and their
> clerks consult WP on a daily basis, or have them find lawyers in
> contempt for merely suggesting that WP has any evil intentions. :-)

Evil need not be intended -- if a company makes its money by the
selling of copyrighted material and we "give it away", that's
problematic. Robin Hood wasn't evil, but he certainly broke the law.

> Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely
> used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will
> cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and
> backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law
> firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of
> dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of
> good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.

I don't think this will cut it -- some of these companies (RIAA, MPAA)
don't seem to have any problems with negative PR. At least, that's
what I took away from Lawrence Lessig's book on copyright law ("Free
Culture", available at http://free-culture.org/freecontent/) which I
found quite interesting thought a bit scary.

Personally I think the best approach would be to have a much stricter
rule about "fair use" for pictoral and sound content (the latter
doesn't seem to be as much of an issue, yet). Again, the effects of
"fair use" and the reach of copyright seems to vary widely by the
media in question: it is easy to make text "free", it is hard to make
images (especially historical or commercial) "free". This might mean
sacrificing some of our aesthetic appearances and make us look a bit
different from the standard "encyclopedia" in many respects -- we
don't pay the sorts of licensing fees that EB pays for this sort of
content.

I think this is one of the things WP is going to get bit on the butt
about at some point, but hopefully I'm wrong!

FF

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:48:57 -0400
From: Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42867249.2030301 at hackish.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>geni said:
>
>
>>On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ray Saintonge said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>should review the four criteria
>>>>for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>>>
>>>
>>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
>>state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
>>
>>
>
>Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
>legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
>non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
>
>
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.  UK courts take the
view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications.  For
example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they
would not be able to sue in UK courts.

-Mark

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:56:02 +1000
From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <550ccb820505141456da5d802 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5/15/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> >geni said:

> >>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
> >>state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
> >legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
> >non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
> >
> >
> Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.  UK courts take the
> view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications.  For
> example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they
> would not be able to sue in UK courts.

I don't think any court would see Wikipedia as being a newspaper.

--
Peter in Canberra

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41
****************************************


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Crazy idea (was:Longterm software strategy)

body:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 03:55:36PM +0100, Patrick Collison wrote:
>
> There's quite a bit of interesting web-development work happening in
> the Smalltalk[1] and Lisp[2] camps at the moment.
>

Maybe Smalltalk will become something use(d|ful) as more than a toy,
finally.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: Ben

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Images download

body:
Thanks Everybody.
I'm making a php script for downloading image from wikipedia.
Don't worry, I add a sleep(2) for not charging server too much.

Thanks again.
Ben

"Brian" <reflection at gmail.com> a ?crit dans le message de news:
9839a05c050513143813331f31 at mail.gmail.com...
You can download the image table and get them one by one as long as you
follow the robots rule for speed.

On 5/13/05, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 13/05/05, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> > They aren't offered anymore.
>
> What happened to the RightToFork?
>
> http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
"What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence." - Ludwig
Wittgenstein
"I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring." - Richard Feynman's last words
--
http://www.br1an.net (website)


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Skyring said:
>
> What sort of payouts have been involved?

Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed.  One serial
plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD
8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
geni said:
> On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> Ray Saintonge said:
>> > should review the four criteria
>> > for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>
>> Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>
>
> The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
> state and the laws of the US federal goverment.

Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.


subject: [Wikitech-l] More thorough history?

body:
Ben Brockert wrote:
> I see on the 1.5 test wiki that page moves are recorded in the  history
> of both the old title and the new title, which is a good step  forward
> from 1.4. Does it also record when a page was deleted and  undeleted and
> by whom? This would make the deletion and undeletion  process more
> transparent. The deletion log doesn't show any undeleted  pages, so I
> couldn't check.

Not yet, but it could.

It's probably worth adding a rev_type field to programmatically
distinguish edits, moves, etc before we take this live.

> Will the permalink be at the top of every page as it is now, or could
> it be moved to the link bar at the bottom, or the toolbox at left, or
> as a new tab at the top? Ideal would be a short tab at the top with  the
> full text as it is now on the History page. Have you noticed that  the
> link on the history page is to revision 0, rather than the  correct rcid?

I'm not sure what this means. There is not currently any default display
of a permalink, though of course you can just copy the first link from
the history.

(Somebody's been playing with the sitenotice on test.leuksman.com,
perhaps that's what you're referring to?)

> On that topic, is there a way to find the current revision number of  a
> page in 1.4? It is needed to make a permanent link for the diff  between
> the current revision and an old revision.

That's not possible in 1.4 because no revision number is assigned until
the next edit is made, when it is moved into the old table.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050514/45bcfdbe/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)

body:
Ray Saintonge said:
>>
> Interesting observation.  Whatever the merits of their cases
> Scientology  is probably in a much better position than Wollmann when
> it comes to the  experience and funding needed to carry on a suit.
> Maybe that experience  has also taught them when not to sue. ;-)
>

They tend to sue under the laws of copyright and trade secrets. Their
lawsuits do seem to be counter-productive, but the effect on the defendant
is usually disproportionately brutal.


subject: [Wikitech-l] More thorough history?

body:
Ben Brockert wrote:
>  Is there a cogent case for not automatically  fixing double
> redirects?

There could be tens of thousands of them, and changing them
automatically may be slow and error-prone. Page moves need to be a
low-cost operation to make and to revert because we're very permissive
about letting people do them.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050514/8075c411/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)

body:
Ray Saintonge said:
>>
> If both parties fail to appear the case
> would be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
>

Yes, he'd need to retain and brief counsel to prepare and present a pro
forma complaint alongside evidence to satisfy the court. He'd have to
ensure that the defendant was served.  He wouldn't have to show up in
court.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Massive photography

body: MediaWiki 1.5 will support this, I've been working on it.


from_name: V. Ivanov

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Two-Character symbols in the Ossetic Alphabet
	(categories)

body:
Hello,

There are special digraphs in the Ossetic alphabet considered
"letters". They are: ??, ??, ??, ??, ??, ??, ??, ??.
How can I make them appear in the categories?
See:
http://os.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%D0%A6%C3%A6%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%98%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD
In this category we have two examples of misrepresenting:
????????? under the letter "?" (it should be under a digraph "??") and
??????????? under the letter "?" with ????????, though they start in
different sounds/letters (?? & ?).

How can I manage this situation? Maybe there is some fast'n'easy way
to make those headlines "??", "??", etc.?

I know the problem will appear for many other languages too: e. g. in
all the languages writing Cyrillic in the Caucasus they have digraphs
(??, ?I, etc.) and even trigraphs (???, etc.).

Sl. Ivanov,
os.wikipedia admin

--
Esperu cxiam!


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Proposal for deprecation of syntax features for 1.5

body:
Neil Barsema wrote:
>
> The funny thing is my Thunderbird mailclient has *no* trouble
> rendering  all  the *bold* /italicized/ and
> possible/troubling/combinations you mention in your mail.... ;-)

That's different. Firstly, it still displays the asterisks and the
slashes, so you are not losing anything. Secondly, even when it does it
when it "shouldn't", it is no biggie, but on Wikipedia it would be.

Just yesterday I wrote "*ducks, runs and hides*" somewhere in this
newsgroup, and it bolded it even though that wasn't the real semantics
of the asterisks. You forgive this because you know Thunderbird can't
tell, but on Wikipedia that would be different.

Timwi


from_name: Ben Brockert

subject: [Wikitech-l] More thorough history?

body:
I see on the 1.5 test wiki that page moves are recorded in the
history of both the old title and the new title, which is a good step
forward from 1.4. Does it also record when a page was deleted and
undeleted and by whom? This would make the deletion and undeletion
process more transparent. The deletion log doesn't show any undeleted
pages, so I couldn't check.

Will the permalink be at the top of every page as it is now, or could
it be moved to the link bar at the bottom, or the toolbox at left, or
as a new tab at the top? Ideal would be a short tab at the top with
the full text as it is now on the History page. Have you noticed that
the link on the history page is to revision 0, rather than the
correct rcid?

On that topic, is there a way to find the current revision number of
a page in 1.4? It is needed to make a permanent link for the diff
between the current revision and an old revision.

Ben


subject: [Wikitech-l] More thorough history?

body:
Also, the reason entered for a move on 1.5 shows up in the move log
and recent changes, but not in the page history. Showing it in the
page history would be advantageous.

I noticed that there is a shiny new special page,
Special:DoubleRedirects. Would it be possible to show the newly
created double redirects after an editor has moved a page with
redirects? The editor is urged to check for them on the move page,
but it is often ignored. Is there a cogent case for not automatically
fixing double redirects?

Ben


from_name: Jeremy

body:
On Sat, 14 May 2005, Magnus Manske wrote:

> * a nice fast parser, maybe in C++
> * a MediaWiki that runs on most platforms, which likely would mean PHP
> * keep the work we put in the current version
>

 	One option would be to implement the functionality you want done
in C (C++ not an option to my knowledge) as a PHP extension, which
basically makes the functions written in C directly available to your PHP
code. For more info, check out:
http://www.zend.com/php/internals/extension-writing1.php

--jeremy


subject: [Wikitech-l] More thorough history?

body:
On May 14, 2005, at 9:59 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Not yet, but it could.
>
> It's probably worth adding a rev_type field to programmatically
> distinguish edits, moves, etc before we take this live.

Makes sense. I think it would be a step forward. At one point there
was talk of showing the existence of deleted revisions, does that exist?

Can I have admin on the test wiki so that I can figure some of this
stuff out for myself?

> I'm not sure what this means. There is not currently any default
> display
> of a permalink, though of course you can just copy the first link from
> the history.
>
> (Somebody's been playing with the sitenotice on test.leuksman.com,
> perhaps that's what you're referring to?)

On http://test.leuksman.com/index.php/Main_page just above the "Main
page" header is this text:

Reference to this version of ":Main page" with http://
test.leuksman.com/index.php?title=Main_page&rcid=3282

with the URL as a link.

> That's not possible in 1.4 because no revision number is assigned
> until
> the next edit is made, when it is moved into the old table.

Ah. I'll continue with the old method of making a useless edit, then.

I noticed that Special:DoubleRedirects doesn't handle more-than-
double redirects very well. I created the chain [[2]] -> [[3]] ->
[[4]] -> [[5]] -> [[6]] -> [[7]] -> [[8]] -> [[Main page]]. The
double redirects page considers it six double redirects, rather than
one many redirect. Not a significant bug, but perhaps something to
consider.

Ben


from_name: Austin Hair

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Proposal for deprecation of syntax features for
	1.5

references:
<51dd1af805051106093d6161c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<428206C8.2090000@presroi.de> <m3vf5pq3t6.fsf@obelix.wegge.dk>
	<d62jjr$lig$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
What's actually being discussed is the reverse, or "clear: both" for
good measure.  For a right-floating image, a break styled "clear:
left" prevents strict adherence to the box model from forcing text
into a teeny-tiny margin if even a single line of text aligns
horizontally with a floating element (image).  You may sometimes wind
up with an slight gap between paragraphs, but it's a far sight better
than the alternative.

Nobody suggested that the images themselves should clear left.

-- Austin


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: a proposal

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Williamson a ?crit:
> > Sounds like a good idea! I'm donating my firstborn.
> >
> > Mark
>
> That sounds like a very unreasonable idea Mark :-)
>
> By the way, we have not much mail from him these days... is
> Christopher
> baby born yet ?

4 more weeks, and the baby showers are killing me. My wife had 4!
(i'm busy writing thank you cards...

But at least we've picked out the name :)

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrighted music on wikipedia.

body:
In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright
status of some of the music he has been uploading.  In these cases he
has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording
artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music
itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off
copyrighted score.

Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal
with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear
that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when
someone finally complained.

However, Raul recently uploaded
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg

I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks
somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government
website should be sufficient.

I am pretty much without words on this. I think Raul's behavior on the
matter of music copyright is negligent. I know this is a harsh thing
to say, ... I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the classical
music, but there is no other way I can describe the uploading of the
Ironic song.

Overall, wikipedia's handling of material taken from government
websites has been playing it fast and loose (it's only PD if the
government created it, if they bought it from someone they might have
the right to distribute it, but *we* may not) but we've really stepped
over the line with this one.

We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.


from_name: Yann Forget

body:
Hi,

Le Friday 13 May 2005 18:28, Timwi a ?crit :
> >>
> >>The only reason one would want to use <p> is to avoid the effect two
> >>newlines have of spawning a new paragraph, that is, to be able to
> >>write something like:
> >
> > I've used it in a few cases where a single bullet point needs to have
> > multiple paragraphs.  (Yes, this really does happen sometimes.)
> > There's no other way to do this in wikicode.
>
> Well, that's not really an argument to keep <p>, but rather an argument
> to extend the list syntax so you don't need the <p>.
>
> I've always thought this was a bit of a stupid limitation of the list
> syntax. I would extend it to allow blocks:
>
> * First list item
> **{ This list item allows several paragraphs.
>
> I think this syntax can be very useful. -- ~~~~
> }

Yes, this would be very useful. And even more so for #, ##, etc.

BTW, while talking about new syntax, could a new code be added for texts in
verse?? Several people requested this. This would avoid a wrong use of <br/>
(or worse).

Thanks,
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Delirium said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>>geni said:
>>
>>
>>>On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ray Saintonge said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>should review the four criteria
>>>>>for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
>>>state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
>>legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
>>non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
>>
>>
> Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.

Please do not make insults on this mailing list.

>  UK courts take
> the  view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications.  For
>  example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton,
> they  would not be able to sue in UK courts.

As far as websites are concerned, that is flatly incorrect.  Australia,
Canada and the UK have all accepted cases against US websites, and the UK
case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a private US
citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the British
courts.
An Australian businessmen sued WSJ online after it claimed he was involved
in money laundering.  The Australian court ruled that he was allowed to
bring the case in Australia where his reputation was damaged by the
article.  Coincidentally, WSJ was also sued in the UK courts over a
separate case.  In both cases the content was published on a US website
primarily for a US readership, but a foreign court accepted jurisdiction.
The Canadian case involved an Ontario citizen suing the Washington Post in
the Ontario courts. What is interesting about this case is that, at the
time of the damage was done, the plaintiff was not in Canada, and was not
a Canadian citizen.  He was a UN employee stationed in an African country.
 Later he moved to Canada and petitioned the courts.  The Ontario court
reasoned that the harm would follow him wherever he went, so they accepted
jurisdiction.


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Skyring said:
> On 5/15/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> Skyring said:
>> >
>> > What sort of payouts have been involved?
>>
>> Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed.  One serial
>> plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD
>> 8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.
>
> You don't think the courts would see a difference, when assessing
> damages, between defamation by a major metropolitan daily newspaper,
> and some guy in a newsgroup?

Oh yes, but a newspaper has far more resources than a private individual.


from_name: Alphax

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: a proposal

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Delphine M?nard wrote:
> On 5/14/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mark Williamson a ?crit:
>>
>>>Sounds like a good idea! I'm donating my firstborn.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>That sounds like a very unreasonable idea Mark :-)
>
>
> I wonder what derivative works of a child could look like. And I am
> asking myself one question. Does the child have to go around with the
> GFDL in their pocket at all times? And what about tags?
>
> Delphine

Derivative works = their children when they grow up :)

- --
Alphax
GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFChhKZ/RxM5Ph0xhMRAolqAJ4h8/HbinzAan7yrohZG+6J2fHBvgCcCHC0
s0T4RrG7BWK1O0j3vDL2ikY=
=jgMo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)

body:
Ray Saintonge said:
> Many Wikipedians do not edit under their own names.
> What  standards of evidence do the British courts follow when the
> defence is  simply, "It wasn't I who said that."  The burden of proof
> lies with the  plaintiff, and someone needs to accept responsibility
> for the costs to a  defendant who has been misidentified.

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in establishing that the
defendant made the edits, but this is decided on the balance of
probabilities.  A reasonably resourceful plaintiff could track down most
Wikipedia editors easily enough.
But the neat thing about the UK system, from the plaintiff's point of
view, is that he can sue the website.  If he notifies the website of the
problem and they don't take it down fairly promptly, they're wide open.
Not doing this in 1997 (in that case, in relation to a Usenet post that
wasn't even made on their servers) cost Demon Internet a lawsuit, which
eventually led to about USD 1,000,000 settlement, plus whatever costs they
incurred in a lawsuit that dragged on for over a year.
FOr the purposes of defamation in UK law, a website is a publisher.

The case in US law is very different because of the CDA 230(c)(1).


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: a proposal

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
> Delphine M?nard wrote:
>
>>What about tags?
>
>>
>
> This child is a [[Wikipedia:The perfect small human|stub]]. Please help
> Wikipedia by making expanding it
>
> ?
>

Wikipedia:The perfect small human
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

    * Start the The perfect small human article.
    * Search for The perfect small human in other articles.
    * Look for The perfect small human in Wiktionary, our sister
dictionary project.
    * Look for The perfect small human in the Commons, our repository
for free images, music, sound, and video.

Maybe the skeleton will have to do :)

- --
Alphax
GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFChhVo/RxM5Ph0xhMRAhOmAKCmjFio3rbM4qqPDpleg6yvO609JwCeJQ2U
63iZy/CC96cyl3P48ptBT9c=
=1nLa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Tony Sidaway said:
>  and the
> UK case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a
> private US citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the
> British courts.

Sorry, I got my cases all muxed ip.  It's Godfrey versus Dolenga. Dolenga
was a Cornell U. postgrad who was also a citizen of British Columbia.
Godfrey said disgustingly anti-Canadian statements on soc.culture.canada,
Dolenga responded by saying something defamatory about Godfrey.  Godfrey
obtained a default judgement against Dolenga in a UK court.  He also sued
Cornell University for "falsely and maliciously published or [causing] to
be published" defamatory statements.  Cornell had refused to stop letting
Dolenga post, citing the First Amendment.  They ended up setting with the
persistent Godfrey.


from_name: Jerome Jamnicky

subject: [Wikitech-l] Images download

body:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:
> On 13/05/05, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>They aren't offered anymore.
>
>
> What happened to the RightToFork?
>

They aren't being provided *at present* because generation of the image
tarballs was slowing the site down too much.  Keeping the site running
is taking priority over fixing this problem.  If you've started a fork,
make a request here for an image tarball and I'll see what I can do.
http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Fair use on English Wikinews

body:
Hello,

I have shortly been talking to Amgine on irc about the new policy, as
well as read it.

This policy seems very reasonable to me. I am happy you found a solution
to be able to upload images necessary to illustrate wikinews articles...
all while limiting related risks with competitors. This is good.

I hope other languages will soon follow as well.

Good luck. Anthere

Erik Moeller a ?crit:
> I would like to re-enable local uploads on the English Wikinews for the
> purpose of fair use image uploads only. We have worked in the last few
> weeks on a whitelist policy for cases where we believe fair use to be
> acceptable:
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Fair_use
>
> This includes screenshots, publicity photos explicitly intended for the
> media, logos, and images under "semi-free" licenses which we might get
> under a fully free license eventually, but where a breaking news
> situation requires us to make a temporary compromise.
>
> This is very important for us; we've already had to delete screenshots
> that showed a security flaw scooped by Wikinews because they were
> non-free and therefore not allowed on the Commons.
>
> For now, there would be two upload links, "Upload media" and "Upload
> fair use media", one pointing to the Commons, the other to the local
> upload page. In MediaWiki 1.5, we can point "Upload file" to the
> Wikimedia Commons, and hide local uploads from the navigation. That way,
> we can apply "security by obscurity". Only people who read the fair use
> policy will find the local upload link.
>
> I'd like to ask the Board to register any objections within the next
> week or so. If there are none, I would also recommend that the other
> language editions follow a similar procedure to develop their own local
> fair use policies, so we can re-enable local uploads on these editions
> one by one.
>
> Erik


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Delirium said:
>
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>>geni said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ray Saintonge said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>should review the four criteria
>>>>>>for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
>>>>state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
>>>legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
>>>non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
>>>
>>>
>>Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.
>>
>>
>Please do not make insults on this mailing list.
>
I fail to see the relevance of that comment.  I most circumstances one
would at least wait until there has in fact been an insult before making
such a request.

>> UK courts take
>>the  view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications.  For
>> example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton,
>>they  would not be able to sue in UK courts.
>>
>>
>As far as websites are concerned, that is flatly incorrect.  Australia,
>Canada and the UK have all accepted cases against US websites, and the UK
>case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a private US
>citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the British
>courts.
>An Australian businessmen sued WSJ online after it claimed he was involved
>in money laundering.  The Australian court ruled that he was allowed to
>bring the case in Australia where his reputation was damaged by the
>article.  Coincidentally, WSJ was also sued in the UK courts over a
>separate case.  In both cases the content was published on a US website
>primarily for a US readership, but a foreign court accepted jurisdiction.
>The Canadian case involved an Ontario citizen suing the Washington Post in
>the Ontario courts. What is interesting about this case is that, at the
>time of the damage was done, the plaintiff was not in Canada, and was not
>a Canadian citizen.  He was a UN employee stationed in an African country.
> Later he moved to Canada and petitioned the courts.  The Ontario court
>reasoned that the harm would follow him wherever he went, so they accepted
>jurisdiction.
>
In reviewing this string of cases at
http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile7.htm I note that the
plaintiff was a resident of the jurisdiction at the time the suit was
filed.  In the Bangoora case it is admitted that he was not a resident
at the time the offence began, but the offence is considered as
continuing as long as the material keeps appearing on the net.  Thus the
questions of jurisdiction presented in these cases relate more to where
the offence was committed, than to whether the plaintiff has standing in
the jurisdiction.

I believe you were the one who claimed that truth was not a defence to
an allegation of defamation in the UK.  This is clearly not true.  See
http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defGeneral.shtml on this point.

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Browne network freakiness & tidy

body:
Browne doesn't want to talk to the srv* boxen anymore, which was rather
bad as it was holding a bunch of memcached space.

Domas has moved its memcached instances to isidore, and things seem to
be working ok for now.

I tried resetting the interfaces real quick (ifup/ifdown on eth0 and
eth1) but to no avail. Browne is known to be a bit flakey I think, so
perhaps someone should poke at it some more or Chad can dismantle it...

Separately, I noticed the new srv* boxen didn't have the tidy PECL
extension installed, so they were calling tidy via the external
executable which is slower. I went ahead and installed it. For reference
the procedure is to install the libtidy-devel package (rpm for fc3 is in
/home/wikipedia/src conveniently) and then 'pear install tidy-1.1x.tgz'
where tidy-1.1x.tgz is my patched copy of the tidy extension package.
The PEAR installer will configure, compile, and install. I left a copy
in my home directory... this should probably get added to the more or
less automated server setup script.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050515/4ba4f9b8/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Ray Saintonge said:
>
>
>>Many Wikipedians do not edit under their own names.
>>What  standards of evidence do the British courts follow when the
>>defence is  simply, "It wasn't I who said that."  The burden of proof
>>lies with the  plaintiff, and someone needs to accept responsibility
>>for the costs to a  defendant who has been misidentified.
>>
>>
>The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in establishing that the
>defendant made the edits, but this is decided on the balance of
>probabilities.  A reasonably resourceful plaintiff could track down most
>Wikipedia editors easily enough.
>
Probably.  Still there would be questions about whether retaining the
material in the archives would be continued publication.  Edits are
constantly being replaced, and removal from immediate access.  The
definition of publisher under the UK Defamation Act is also interesting.

> ."publisher" means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose
> business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the
> public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of
> that business.

>But the neat thing about the UK system, from the plaintiff's point of
>view, is that he can sue the website.  If he notifies the website of the
>problem and they don't take it down fairly promptly, they're wide open.
>Not doing this in 1997 (in that case, in relation to a Usenet post that
>wasn't even made on their servers) cost Demon Internet a lawsuit, which
>eventually led to about USD 1,000,000 settlement, plus whatever costs they
>incurred in a lawsuit that dragged on for over a year.
>FOr the purposes of defamation in UK law, a website is a publisher.
>
>The case in US law is very different because of the CDA 230(c)(1).
>
>
The damages awarded in Godfrey v. Demon were ?15,000.  The legal costs
awarded at ?250,000 seem to be completely out of proportion to the
damages, so I would be curious about the British procedure for taxing
costs.  Where does the USD 1,000,000 exageration come from?

The Godfrey case begins with an admission that this is a new matter for
the British courts.  The decision is a trial decision with no appeal
apparently undertaken.  It would be interesting to see how much of the
decision would survive an appeal.

The defendants in this case were a UK company, so how this might have
been reciprocally enforced against a US company did not arise.
Nevertheless US courts are loath to enforce foreign orders which they
see as violating the first amendment rights of a defendant.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Tony Sidaway said:
>
>
>> and the
>>UK case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a
>>private US citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the
>>British courts.
>>
>>
>Sorry, I got my cases all muxed ip.  It's Godfrey versus Dolenga. Dolenga
>was a Cornell U. postgrad who was also a citizen of British Columbia.
>Godfrey said disgustingly anti-Canadian statements on soc.culture.canada,
>Dolenga responded by saying something defamatory about Godfrey.  Godfrey
>obtained a default judgement against Dolenga in a UK court.  He also sued
>Cornell University for "falsely and maliciously published or [causing] to
>be published" defamatory statements.  Cornell had refused to stop letting
>Dolenga post, citing the First Amendment.  They ended up setting with the
>persistent Godfrey.
>
It looks like Godfrey's barratry can be quite profitable.  I've noted at
least 11 defendants who have been victims of his actions.  Since my
previous posting I've noted that the ruling on his case with Demon was
on a pre-trial motion.  The tendency to settle these things out of court
really doesn't help for building up a series of applicable precedents.

Ec


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
On 5/15/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> >geni said:

> >>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
> >>state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
> >legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
> >non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
> >
> >
> Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.  UK courts take the
> view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications.  For
> example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they
> would not be able to sue in UK courts.

I don't think any court would see Wikipedia as being a newspaper.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
On 5/15/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Skyring said:
> >
> > What sort of payouts have been involved?
>
> Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed.  One serial
> plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD
> 8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.

You don't think the courts would see a difference, when assessing
damages, between defamation by a major metropolitan daily newspaper,
and some guy in a newsgroup?

Both could say you have your head up your bum, but is a court going to
see the harm as equal and settlement identical?

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright
>status of some of the music he has been uploading.  In these cases he
>has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording
>artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music
>itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off
>copyrighted score.
>
>Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal
>with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear
>that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when
>someone finally complained.
>
>However, Raul recently uploaded
>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
>
>I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks
>somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government
>website should be sufficient.
>
>I am pretty much without words on this. I think Raul's behavior on the
>matter of music copyright is negligent. I know this is a harsh thing
>to say, ... I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the classical
>music, but there is no other way I can describe the uploading of the
>Ironic song.
>
>Overall, wikipedia's handling of material taken from government
>websites has been playing it fast and loose (it's only PD if the
>government created it, if they bought it from someone they might have
>the right to distribute it, but *we* may not) but we've really stepped
>over the line with this one.
>
>We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
>
This is less about music copyright issues than about material from
government websites.  We shouldn't be too quick to fault Raul for this.
If there is any copyright violation USAF is the one that should be held
responsible.  Raul is apparently being misled by the US government

It is a fact that the site's "Privacy and Security" page says,
"Information presented on the Air Force Band of the Golden West website
is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use
of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested."  The page which
lists the available music also says, "To save an MP3 to your hard drive,
right click on a song title and select 'save target as'.***""  Under
usual circumstances that would be illegal in the US.

Perhaps one might raise it with their webmaster.  The music industry
would have a field day with this if it were raised with them. ;-)

Ec


body:
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:

>http://www.maverickrc.com/releases/26/
>
>As is shown here, the album "Jagged Little Pill" is still for sale, thus we
>are correct in assuming that "Ironic" cannot be uploaded legally on
>Wikipedia.
>
That point is not relevant.  Ceasing to be available has no effect on
the copyright of the material unless it is more than 75 years old.

Ec.


list: wiktionary-l

subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Fwd: Droits d'auteurs sur le dictionnaire de l'Académie

body:
Yann Forget wrote:

>Bonjour,
>
>Voici les correspondances entre l'un des contributeurs du Wiktionary
>francophone et l'Acad?mie fran?aise.
>
>JB Soufron nous a indiqu? la possibilit? que le dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie
>soit consid?r? comme une publication officielle de la R?publique fran?aise,
>et ne soit donc pas soumis au droit d'auteur. Hors le site ci-dessous dit
>apparemment le contraire.
>http://www.defidoc.com/droit_info/DtAutME.htm
>http://www.defidoc.com/info_jur/DonneesPubl.htm#ActOff
>
>Je rappelle que l'enjeu est important. Il s'agit de pouvoir recopier le
>dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie dans le Wiktionary francophone.
>Il est donc important que nous ayons une r?ponse claire et d?finitive par des
>juristes.
>
>En bref, peut-on recopier le dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie fran?aise, et si oui,
>quelle ?dition ? La 9e qui est en cours de parution ? La 8e, qui est parue de
>1932 ? 1935 ? La 7e de 1878 ?
>
>Par avance, merci.
>
>Yann
>
>Sujet: 	Droits d'auteurs sur le dictionnaire. D.1231
>Date: 	Fri, 13 May 2005 10:43:37 +0200
>De: 	Service du dictionnaire <dictionnaire at academie-francaise.fr>
>Pour:
>R?f?rences: 	<003c01c55546$10383d40$3a02a8c0 at prixaf01>
>
>         Monsieur,
>
>         Le /Dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie fran?aise /n'est nullement une
>"publication de l'?tat. En ses ?ditions successives, il reste l'ouvrage
>d'un m?me auteur collectif "immortel", l'Acad?mie. Il n'est donc pas
>dans le domaine public, les ?diteurs sont d?tenteurs des droits pour la
>version papier.
>
>         La version informatis?e est propri?t? de l'Acad?mie fran?aise
>pour le texte et de l'Institut national de la langue fran?aise (CNRS)
>pour le balisage informatique et le moteur de recherche. Elle est donc
>enti?rement prot?g?e par la l?gislation en vigueur sur le droit d'auteur.
>
>         Toute utilisation de ce texte (diffusion, copie, r?utilisation ?
>d'autres fins, etc.) qui n'aurait pas fait l'objet d'une autorisation de
>l'Acad?mie et de l'Inalf serait ill?gale et entra?nerait des poursuites.
>
>         Veuillez agr?er, Monsieur, mes salutations distingu?es.
>
>
>Serge P?tillot-Ni?metz
>charg? de mission
>
L'id?e d'un "auteur collectif "immortel"" me semble bizarre.  Je sais
bien que les acad?miciens se disent les immortels, mais je n'aurais
jamais interpret? ?a qu'un sobriquet honorifique.  La neuv?me ?dition
est clairement prot?g?.  Pour la huit?me les droits d'auteur auraient
d?j? expir?s pour les premiers volumes, et ces droits pour les autres
devraient terminer ? la fin de 2005.  Je ne trouve rien dans la loi sur
les droits d'auteurs qui autoriserait un collectif immortel.

Tout au d?but du Wiktionnaire fran?ais j'ai propos? l'id?e d'une
Wikid?mie.  Oserais-je r?introduire cet id?e?  Bien sur la Wikid?mie
serait limit?e ? quarante membres nomm?s au d?but par notre propre
r?incarnation de Louis XIII.  :-)

Ec


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.

body:
John Bradley stated for the record:
> Hi I have been accused by David Gerard of being the number, for some
> reason. This is more to do with Gerard continued harasment of me (User
> Irate) and his need to appear to be protected you lot from things you do not
> understand. Her is the news it is Gerard that does not understand anything
> excpect manipulation. Vote any way you like but don't vote gerard.

I state with great solemnity and no sarcasm whatsoever that your
endorsement is quite influential.  I will certainly bear it in mind if
Gerard ever appears in an election.  Thank you for publishing it -- your
opinion of people is important to me.

I can only hope that one day you will endorse me with the same sort of
terms.

--
  Sean Barrett     | I find television very educating. Every time
  sean at epoptic.com | somebody turns on the set, I go into the
                   | other room and read a book. --Groucho Marx


from_name: Brian Suda

subject: [Wikitech-l] Export Dictionary?

body:
I have been on this list awhile, when i originally joined i was
interesting in the possibility of exporting the wiktionary data as
.dict format. Now that the newest version of OSX 10.4 has a built-in
dictionary that uses the dict:// to look-up words i was interested to
see if anyone on the technicaly side would like to explore the
possibility of either exporting the Wiktionary database as .dict
format, or run a dictionary daemon that would access the wiktionary
database server and return dict entries. It would be read-only, but it
would be another interesting way to access the wiktionary besides the
web interface.

Does anyone on the tech list know if this is even possible? I'm not
asking you to do it (i can write the export), i was wondering if there
is some sort of database schema available to extract the data into
dict format, or are the entries too fragmented to even attempt an
export?

-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk


from_name: James D. Forrester

body:
On Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:22 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/15/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.

[Snip]

> I think it is only the composer and the musicians who have to give
> permission (and the text writer in case of a song). Can someone
> acknowledge or correct me?

This is not entirely correct, AIUI: the act of type-setting the score is not
considered a "mechanical" reproduction of the music, but, instead, an
artistic work worthy of copyright - the manner of scoring can chanage the
tone of the piece, and so the setter has to try to work out what the
composer meant.

This way in which the score is set out is then, in effect, an arrangement of
the original music, and so, when the score is played, the copyright of the
composer, the score-setter, the musicians, and the conductor (if
appropriate) are all taking an artistic part in the creation of copyright,
and so we would need the permission of each of them. Note that most
score-setting is done on a work-for-hire basis for large companies like
Boosey & Hawkes, who are extremely unlikely to give permission for free

However, this is only my understanding, and could be wrong; I will ask a
couple of friends of mine who professionally score-set for their insight.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Mail: james at jdforrester.org | jon at eh.org | csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM  : (MSN) jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

body:
>We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.

Unfortunately, the recording company rather than the author has to grant
permission. Or better, both of them have to do so, certainly as long as the
cd is still in stores. Please throw them off, or we'll be in big trouble
soon. And if Raul goes on doing things like these, we'd better block him.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nieuw: Download nu MSN Messenger 7.0 http://messenger.msn.nl/


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On 5/15/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
>
> Unfortunately, the recording company rather than the author has to grant
> permission. Or better, both of them have to do so, certainly as long as the
> cd is still in stores. Please throw them off, or we'll be in big trouble
> soon. And if Raul goes on doing things like these, we'd better block him.

I'm not sure about habits at this point, but I think that this only
holds if we use the cd recording. If the piece is recorded on a
separate occasion, I think it is only the composer and the musicians
who have to give permission (and the text writer in case of a song).
Can someone acknowledge or correct me?

Andre Engels


from_name: Timwi

body:
Yann Forget wrote:
>
> BTW, while talking about new syntax, could a new code be added for texts in
> verse ? Several people requested this. This would avoid a wrong use of <br/>
> (or worse).

You can already use : for this:

	: Integral of t squared dt
	: From one to the cube-root of three
	:: Is two-thirds cosine
	:: Of three pi over nine
	: Plus log of the cube-root of e.

                   3 ___
                   \/ 3
                 /
                |       2       2       3 pi        3 __
                |      t  dt = --- cos(------) + ln(\/e )
                |               3        9
               /
                 1

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special variable

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:
>
> Interesting. I had assumed that Phil wanted to link to
> [[{{PAGENAMENOPARANTHESES}} (disambiguation)]], which could be mildly useful
> in primary topic disambiguation cases.

But the point is that the "primary topic" will not have parentheses by
definition. (At least not parentheses that you want to get rid of.)


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

body:
There are so many people who can hold copyright on a music recordings
that of today it is nearly impossible for us to clear their rights.

The only viable solution would be to clearly idenfify what recordings
can be said PD or can be used under fair use or droit d'auteur
limitations.

This is a sensitive topic since the music industry is much eager to
sue than anything else...

Jean-Baptiste Soufron

Le 15 mai 05 ? 05:47, Gregory Maxwell a ?crit :

> In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright
> status of some of the music he has been uploading.  In these cases he
> has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording
> artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music
> itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off
> copyrighted score.
>
> Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal
> with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear
> that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when
> someone finally complained.
>
> However, Raul recently uploaded
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
>
> I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks
> somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government
> website should be sufficient.
>
> I am pretty much without words on this. I think Raul's behavior on the
> matter of music copyright is negligent. I know this is a harsh thing
> to say, ... I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the classical
> music, but there is no other way I can describe the uploading of the
> Ironic song.
>
> Overall, wikipedia's handling of material taken from government
> websites has been playing it fast and loose (it's only PD if the
> government created it, if they bought it from someone they might have
> the right to distribute it, but *we* may not) but we've really stepped
> over the line with this one.
>
> We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
If I can be of any help... :)

Le 15 mai 05 ? 04:49, Anthere a ?crit :

> Hello,
>
> I have shortly been talking to Amgine on irc about the new policy,
> as well as read it.
>
> This policy seems very reasonable to me. I am happy you found a
> solution to be able to upload images necessary to illustrate
> wikinews articles... all while limiting related risks with
> competitors. This is good.
>
> I hope other languages will soon follow as well.
>
> Good luck. Anthere
>
>
>
> Erik Moeller a ?crit:
>
>> I would like to re-enable local uploads on the English Wikinews
>> for the purpose of fair use image uploads only. We have worked in
>> the last few weeks on a whitelist policy for cases where we
>> believe fair use to be acceptable:
>> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Fair_use
>> This includes screenshots, publicity photos explicitly intended
>> for the media, logos, and images under "semi-free" licenses which
>> we might get under a fully free license eventually, but where a
>> breaking news situation requires us to make a temporary compromise.
>> This is very important for us; we've already had to delete
>> screenshots that showed a security flaw scooped by Wikinews
>> because they were non-free and therefore not allowed on the Commons.
>> For now, there would be two upload links, "Upload media" and
>> "Upload fair use media", one pointing to the Commons, the other to
>> the local upload page. In MediaWiki 1.5, we can point "Upload
>> file" to the Wikimedia Commons, and hide local uploads from the
>> navigation. That way, we can apply "security by obscurity". Only
>> people who read the fair use policy will find the local upload link.
>> I'd like to ask the Board to register any objections within the
>> next week or so. If there are none, I would also recommend that
>> the other language editions follow a similar procedure to develop
>> their own local fair use policies, so we can re-enable local
>> uploads on these editions one by one.
>> Erik
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

body:
On 5/15/05, Anthere <anthere9(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hope other languages will soon follow as well.

Here goes Poland - http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek

"Dozwolony u?ytek" means literally "Permitted use". It's almost the
same as fair use. In the proposed policy we're accepting only logos,
trademark symbols, and attachments for press, such as artworks,
photos, screenshots, etc., which are released by the company which
owns the copyrights to the product in question.

We'll still be discussing it through the following days, but due to
our pretty small user base, we'll probably be ready to start accepting
uploaded media pretty soon.

--
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: articles showing up

body:
Anthere wrote:
> The board received a request today from a person complaining there was
> an article about him on wikipedia and it was showing up in google. He
> asked that all references to him be removed.
>
> I informed him the article had been recently deleted.
>
> However, I wonder if the vote for deletion/nameOfTheGuy will not go up
> showing in google as well ?
>
> Are the pages vote for delection/foo visible to Google or not ? If they
> are, should they not be deleted after a while or in certain situations ?

They are visible, and I think they should be. Simply storing them does
not impact Wikipedia's performance (unless, of course, we run out of
disk space, but I suppose that's not too much of a problem). I do not
believe that people have a right to demand that these pages be removed
(unless, of course, they contain libel or slander) because they are part
of the normal operation of Wikipedia, and deleting them would disrupt it
(albeit slightly).

Timwi


body:
On 5/15/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> This is less about music copyright issues than about material from
> government websites.  We shouldn't be too quick to fault Raul for this.
> If there is any copyright violation USAF is the one that should be held
> responsible.  Raul is apparently being misled by the US government

Well this is why I specifically mentioned our handling of government
sourced material, I think it's an issue as well.  I only jumped to
placing blame on Raul because this isn't the first time he's uploaded
music with a questionable copyright status, because this example so
blatantly fails a common sense test, and because he didn't pull it
right away when it was pointed out. ::shrugs::

> It is a fact that the site's "Privacy and Security" page says,
> "Information presented on the Air Force Band of the Golden West website
> is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use
> of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested."  The page which
> lists the available music also says, "To save an MP3 to your hard drive,
> right click on a song title and select 'save target as'.***""  Under
> usual circumstances that would be illegal in the US.

Government websites are routinely inaccurate with such things: They
put the boilerplate notice up because it's part of policy... but then
they go on to include material they've licensed from others.

> Perhaps one might raise it with their webmaster.  The music industry
> would have a field day with this if it were raised with them. ;-)

Well it goes beyond the government website issue as well.. The
copyright status of music is complex, for example.. If you performed a
piece of music written by a 17th century composer, you still may not
be able to upload it to wikipedia because the arrangement you played
from was copyrighted by the publisher of the sheet music.   It is
often the case that the only copy of a score that is reasonably
available is one that is covered under copyright, even for a piece of
music that was written hundreds of years ago.


body:
On 5/15/05, James D. Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
[snip]
> This way in which the score is set out is then, in effect, an arrangement of
> the original music, and so, when the score is played, the copyright of the
> composer, the score-setter, the musicians, and the conductor (if
> appropriate) are all taking an artistic part in the creation of copyright,
> and so we would need the permission of each of them. Note that most
> score-setting is done on a work-for-hire basis for large companies like
> Boosey & Hawkes, who are extremely unlikely to give permission for free
[snip]

This is correct, and it is preventing hundreds of hours of music
performed by University orchestras around the world from being
contributed for our use.

Many (most?) professional musicians have some understanding of these
issues and know enough to tell you that they don't necessarily have
reproduction rights on their recordings, even for the works of long
decomposed composers.

But I suspect that many are not aware of this... As a result I think
we should amend the copyright release question which is used from
music so that it asks "Is this an original composition? If it is not,
has the original work passed into the public domain?  If it has, was
this performed from score which was also in the public domain? If so,
may we please have a copy of this public domain score so that we can
preserve and make it available as well?"


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:20:38PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:18:15PM -0400, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 03:55:36PM +0100, Patrick Collison wrote:
> > >
> > > There's quite a bit of interesting web-development work happening in
> > > the Smalltalk[1] and Lisp[2] camps at the moment.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe Smalltalk will become something use(d|ful) as more than a toy,
> > finally.
>
> Smalltalk is used in web development, except that it's called Ruby ;-)
> and it's put on rails. Check http://del.icio.us/tag/rails

If I was going to equate Smalltalk derivatives with Smalltalk itself,
I might have mentioned that Smalltalk is used in application
development, except that it's called Objective-C.  Unfortunately,
derivatives and their antecedents are not equal.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


body:
>
> I'm not sure about habits at this point, but I think that this only
> holds if we use the cd recording. If the piece is recorded on a
> separate occasion, I think it is only the composer and the musicians
> who have to give permission (and the text writer in case of a song).
> Can someone acknowledge or correct me?

I am not sure to exactly understand what you asked for, but I would
say : yes it would be ok.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Ray Saintonge said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>>>
>>Please do not make insults on this mailing list.
>>
> I fail to see the relevance of that comment.  I most circumstances one
> would at least wait until there has in fact been an insult before
> making  such a request.

I'll let it go.  Perhaps the slight was unintended.

>>
> In the Bangoora case it is admitted that he was not a resident
> at the time the offence began, but the offence is considered as
> continuing as long as the material keeps appearing on the net.

Yes.  Also of relevance was the fact that the Washington Post is widely
read throughout North America.

In a case where an American brought a case against an American in a UK
court, the court might decline jurisdiction, or it might not.  I'm not
aware of any relevant case law, but the internet's pervasiveness suggests
that any location where a person's reputation could be damaged may be
considered appropriate.

>
> I believe you were the one who claimed that truth was not a defence to
> an allegation of defamation in the UK.

I think it was somebody else.


from_name: Rick

subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
--- Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> > Like how exactly? How would a picture of Mickey be
> used in any
> > other way than to illustrate an article about
> animated characters
> > or Disney?
>
> Fair use is for commentary and criticism. In an
> ideal form, a
> Wikipedia article with photos of Mickey might count
> as "commentary".

There was a political cartoon in this morning's
Sacramento newspaper with images of Mickey and Minnie
Mouse dicussing the latest news of mouse genes being
transplanted into a human.  That would apparently fall
under fair use.

RickK

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail


body:
Yann Forget wrote:

>>La neuv?me ?dition
>>est clairement prot?g?.  Pour la huit?me les droits d'auteur auraient
>>d?j? expir?s pour les premiers volumes, et ces droits pour les autres
>>devraient terminer ? la fin de 2005.  Je ne trouve rien dans la loi sur
>>les droits d'auteurs qui autoriserait un collectif immortel.
>>
>>
>Yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that, otherwise I wouldn't ask.
>There is a provision in French law for adding 8 years due to the Second World
>War, but it seems it doesn't apply to the French Academy because the Academy
>has no heirs. And it could be that the 9th edition is not subject to
>copyright because it is an official publication from the French Republic.
>
>
30 years for those who are "morts pour la France", but that can't apply
for those who are immortal.

Ec


body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
> Isn't it Ironic it is actually this song we are discussing. I am
> actually comparing this "US Army" version with the version on my "Dutch
> bought" "Jagged little pill" cd. And I must say the musical composition
> is different. I know as we are busy withit with the comedy group here in
> Thailand that if one in every four bars is different it doesn't
> constitute a copy vio in the US. That is how rappers get away with
> sampling.

Rappers "get away with sampling" by paying money to license the samples.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050515/3198e116/attachment.pgp


subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

body:
Rick wrote:

>--- Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 5/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Like how exactly? How would a picture of Mickey be
>>>
>>>
>>used in any
>>
>>
>>>other way than to illustrate an article about
>>>
>>>
>>animated characters
>>
>>
>>>or Disney?
>>>
>>>
>>Fair use is for commentary and criticism. In an
>>ideal form, a
>>Wikipedia article with photos of Mickey might count
>>as "commentary".
>>
>>
>There was a political cartoon in this morning's
>Sacramento newspaper with images of Mickey and Minnie
>Mouse dicussing the latest news of mouse genes being
>transplanted into a human.  That would apparently fall
>under fair use.
>
>
It should be allowable as parody, about which there was a case.

There could be a situation where a human baby born with MM type ears
would violate someone's patent. :-)

Ec


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:18:15PM -0400, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 03:55:36PM +0100, Patrick Collison wrote:
> >
> > There's quite a bit of interesting web-development work happening in
> > the Smalltalk[1] and Lisp[2] camps at the moment.
> >
>
> Maybe Smalltalk will become something use(d|ful) as more than a toy,
> finally.

Smalltalk is used in web development, except that it's called Ruby ;-)
and it's put on rails. Check http://del.icio.us/tag/rails


from_name: Deathphoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Irate impersonating me on IRC

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>If you see someone on IRC coming from 217.44.0.0/16 with a nick that's a
>variation on my name, it's not me, it's Irate.
>
>User:The Number comes from the same range (it's btcentralplus.com, so
>that's giving away approximately nothing) and may or may not be the same
>person. Although The Number doesn't use trademark Irate typos.
>
>
That's it, David. I'm not voting for you.


from_name: David 'DJ' Hedley

body:
http://www.maverickrc.com/releases/26/

As is shown here, the album "Jagged Little Pill" is still for sale, thus we
are correct in assuming that "Ironic" cannot be uploaded legally on
Wikipedia.


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright
> status of some of the music he has been uploading.  In these cases he
> has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording
> artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music
> itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off
> copyrighted score.
>
> Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal
> with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear
> that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when
> someone finally complained.
>
> However, Raul recently uploaded
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
>
> I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks
> somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government
> website should be sufficient.

The "boilerplate copyright waver" referenced was:
http://public.travis.amc.af.mil/pages/band/text%20site/textpolicy.html

   2. Information presented on the Air Force Band of the Golden
   West website is considered public information and may be distributed
   or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is
   requested.

If anyone thinks this general statement about 'information presented'
somehow waives the copyrights of third parties, sorry but I call bullshit.

I've gone ahead and deleted that particular file.

As mentioned elsewhere is this thread, music copyrights are a tricky
business, with multiple stakeholders. The short answer though is simple:
the rights of the composer and lyricist (or the record company which
bought those rights) are not nullified when somebody else plays their song.

"Ironic" by Alanis Morissette doesn't become public domain when the Air
Force plays it, any more than "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton or the
source code to Windows XP would become public domain if an Air Force
public-reading team read them aloud and put an MP3 audio book on their
website as a demo.

Either that Air Force band has the necessary permissions *for
themselves* to post those songs on their website or they haven't thought
about it and will eventually get a nasty letter from the RIAA about
royalty payments. Either way, *we do* think about it and it's completely
unreasonable to pretend we don't know that's a problem.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050515/1dfc2be2/attachment.pgp


body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Number suggests a very similiar
character so I wouldn't be at all surprised.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gerard" <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
To: <wikien-l at wikimedia.org>; <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Irate impersonating me on IRC

>
> If you see someone on IRC coming from 217.44.0.0/16 with a nick that's a
> variation on my name, it's not me, it's Irate.
>
> User:The Number comes from the same range (it's btcentralplus.com, so
> that's giving away approximately nothing) and may or may not be the same
> person. Although The Number doesn't use trademark Irate typos.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)

body:
Ray Saintonge said:
>  Still there would be questions about whether retaining the
> material in the archives would be continued publication.  Edits are
> constantly being replaced, and removal from immediate access.

I don't know what WikiMedia's lawyers think of the fact that every single
item in Wikipedia's archives are immediately available via URLs, and that
each article on Wikipedia contains a link to the history which is a list
of links to previous content.
An interesting thing happened today.  An article was listed for deletion,
but at some point RickK marked it as a copyvio; the article seemed to be
heading for a keep or no consensus.  I disputed Rick's action because the
article isn't a copy, and Rick pointed out that an earlier incarnation had
been a copyvio.  I still thought it was OTT, but now I'm thinking that
copyvio is the right place, and that the correct action to take is that
the article should be deleted and all but the copyvio versions restored.

> The
> definition of publisher under the UK Defamation Act is also
> interesting.

It's extremely broad under that act. Basically if you cause or enable
something defamatory to be transmitted to others in any way, shape or
form, you're a publisher, but if you're an internet service provider you
*probably* have a get-out unless and until you're made aware of the
specific defamation.
>>
> The damages awarded in Godfrey v. Demon were ?15,000.  The legal costs
> awarded at ?250,000 seem to be completely out of proportion to the
> damages, so I would be curious about the British procedure for taxing
> costs.  Where does the USD 1,000,000 exageration come from?

The case never went to court; it was an out-of-court settlement, not an
award.  I misremembered the amount.  The pre-trial phase of the case was a
very hard-fought one so I don't think the costs sound particularly high in
the circumstances.  Godfrey is very persistent and confident in his
ability to win cases, so he tends to put everything into them.
> The defendants in this case were a UK company, so how this might have
> been reciprocally enforced against a US company did not arise.

See Godfrey versus Cornell University.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Search activation

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> I've activated the Lucene search now on the following wikis:

Whoo hoo! Thanks!

What is the update interval? I.e. how long after each edit till the
search will be updated with that edit?

Thanks!
Timwi


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Export Dictionary?

body:
I have been on this list awhile, when i originally joined i was
interesting in the possibility of exporting the wiktionary data as
.dict format. Now that the newest version of OSX 10.4 has a built-in
dictionary that uses the dict:// to look-up words i was interested to
see if anyone on the technicaly side would like to explore the
possibility of either exporting the Wiktionary database as .dict
format, or run a dictionary daemon that would access the wiktionary
database server and return dict entries. It would be read-only, but it
would be another interesting way to access the wiktionary besides the
web interface.

Does anyone on the tech list know if this is even possible? I'm not
asking you to do it (i can write the export), i was wondering if there
is some sort of database schema available to extract the data into
dict format, or are the entries too fragmented to even attempt an
export?

-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: More thorough history?

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Ben Brockert wrote:
>
>>  Is there a cogent case for not automatically  fixing double
>> redirects?
>
> There could be tens of thousands of them, and changing them
> automatically may be slow and error-prone. Page moves need to be a
> low-cost operation to make and to revert because we're very permissive
> about letting people do them.

This is true, but you can still find out what double-redirects there and
enter them in a queue for later scheduled fixing or something...


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Fwd: Droits d'auteurs sur le dictionnaire del'Académie

body:
Bonjour,

Voici les correspondances entre l'un des contributeurs du Wiktionary
francophone et l'Acad?mie fran?aise.

JB?Soufron nous a indiqu? la possibilit? que le dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie
soit consid?r? comme une publication officielle de la R?publique fran?aise,
et ne soit donc pas soumis au droit d'auteur. Hors le site ci-dessous dit
apparemment le contraire.
http://www.defidoc.com/droit_info/DtAutME.htm
http://www.defidoc.com/info_jur/DonneesPubl.htm#ActOff

Je rappelle que l'enjeu est important. Il s'agit de pouvoir recopier le
dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie dans le Wiktionary francophone.
Il est donc important que nous ayons une r?ponse claire et d?finitive par des
juristes.

En bref, peut-on recopier le dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie fran?aise, et si oui,
quelle ?dition ? La 9e qui est en cours de parution ? La 8e, qui est parue de
1932 ? 1935 ? La 7e de 1878 ?

Par avance, merci.

Yann

Sujet: 	Droits d'auteurs sur le dictionnaire. D.1231
Date: 	Fri, 13 May 2005 10:43:37 +0200
De: 	Service du dictionnaire <dictionnaire at academie-francaise.fr>
Pour:
R?f?rences: 	<003c01c55546$10383d40$3a02a8c0 at prixaf01>

         Monsieur,

         Le /Dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie fran?aise /n'est nullement une
"publication de l'?tat. En ses ?ditions successives, il reste l'ouvrage
d'un m?me auteur collectif "immortel", l'Acad?mie. Il n'est donc pas
dans le domaine public, les ?diteurs sont d?tenteurs des droits pour la
version papier.

         La version informatis?e est propri?t? de l'Acad?mie fran?aise
pour le texte et de l'Institut national de la langue fran?aise (CNRS)
pour le balisage informatique et le moteur de recherche. Elle est donc
enti?rement prot?g?e par la l?gislation en vigueur sur le droit d'auteur.

         Toute utilisation de ce texte (diffusion, copie, r?utilisation ?
d'autres fins, etc.) qui n'aurait pas fait l'objet d'une autorisation de
l'Acad?mie et de l'Inalf serait ill?gale et entra?nerait des poursuites.

         Veuillez agr?er, Monsieur, mes salutations distingu?es.

Serge P?tillot-Ni?metz
charg? de mission

  > From: "Christophe Millet"
  > To: "contact" <contact at academie-francaise.fr
  > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:23 AM
  > Subject: droits d'auteurs sur le dictionnaire
  >
  >
  > Bonjour,
  >
  > j'aurais souhait? quelques pr?cisions sur les droits d'auteur
  > applicables au dictionnaire de l'Acad?mie Fran?aise.
  > Etant donn? que c'est une publication de l'Etat (puisqu'il est
  > publi? dans le Journal officiel), est-il libre de droit au
  > m?me titre que les lois,
  > ou bien doit on la consid?rer comme une oeuvre collective ?
  > laquelle s'applique les droits d'auteurs pendant 70 apr?s la
  > date de publication ?
  >
  > Dans ce deuxi?me cas, la huiti?me ?dition, publi?e de 1932 ?
  > 1935 doit ?tre libre de droit (pour ses premiers volumes du
  > moins), puisqu'il s'est ?coul? 70 ans depuis ?
  >
  > D'avance merci pour vos r?ponses,
  > Cordialement,
  > Christophe Millet

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.

body:
On Sun, 15 May 2005, John Bradley wrote:

>  Vote any way you like but don't vote gerard.
>
I'm puzzled at this. Didn't the UK elections end last week? And
AFAIK, there are no elections in Australia (which is David's
home country), so unless David is running against John Bolton for
US Ambassador to the UN (the only vote I know of that's impending),
what office exactly *is* David Gerard running/standing for?

(And if David is running against Bolton, he can't do any worse
of a job than that wacko. Then again, John Bradley probably could
do a better job as UN Ambassador than Bolton.)

Geoff


from_name: John Bradley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.

body:
Hi I have been accused by David Gerard of being the number, for some
reason. This is more to do with Gerard continued harasment of me (User
Irate) and his need to appear to be protected you lot from things you do not
understand. Her is the news it is Gerard that does not understand anything
excpect manipulation. Vote any way you like but don't vote gerard.

		Yours

		John Bradley

Loc: 	Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone:	+44 (0)151 708 7238
Email:  john at ontobus.co.uk
WWW:	www.ontobus.co.uk


from_name: Bryan Parry

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Setting up a Scots Wikipedia

body:
I wish to register my support for the creation of a
Scots language wiki.

Bryan Parry
bajparry at yahoo.co.uk

I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

	-- William Butler Yeats

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Explanation of Tony Sidaway's block of Pioneer-12,
	who isn't doing anything wrong

body:
Pioneer-12 disputes the application of the GFDL to his signed
contributions on talk namespace, a fact that only became apparent to me a
few minutes ago, but he has continued to contribute disputed material to
talk space.
To avoid further disputed material being contributed I have blocked him--I
know this is going to be controversial because he hasn't really done
anything "wrong", it's just a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia, so
I'm not going to engage in arguments over this, but it seems to me like
the best way to limit the potential damage.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: a proposal

body:
Delphine M?nard wrote:
>
> I wonder what derivative works of a child could look like.

Their children, of course. And so on. Talk about viral license. Before
you know it, the entire human population is GFDL. Then an alien
civilisation comes along and exercises their Right to Fork. But they
will have a problem: the pets in the English-speaking countries are
mostly fair use.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.

body:
How did you get on the arbcomm then?

Note Gerrard avoids mentioning his accusation of me being
[[User:The_Number]]. that you claim to have checked the address range. It
is fairly typical of the kind of manipulation Gerard like to go for.

I didn't impersonate you. I put a 2 after the name. I did not claim to be you.
It was you who decided to claim it was an attempt to impersonate you.

Though of course in your world, the little children of the Wiki need
protecting and your the man to do it.

Date sent:      	Mon, 16 May 2005 01:05:20 +1000
To:             	English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject:        	Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.
From:           	David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
Send reply to:  	English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
	<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
	<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>

> John Bradley (Johnb at ontobus.co.uk) [050516 00:59]:
>
> > Hi I have been accused by David Gerard of being the number, for some
> > reason. This is more to do with Gerard continued harasment of me (User
> > Irate) and his need to appear to be protected you lot from things you do not
> > understand. Her is the news it is Gerard that does not understand anything
> > excpect manipulation. Vote any way you like but don't vote gerard.
>
>
> Should I ever run for anything, I eagerly hope for Irate to continue to
> tell people not to vote for me.
>
> (The "continued harrassment" appears to be blocking him on #wikipedia for
> impersonating me on IRC. Apparently Tim Starling should never have been
> given admin powers either, for blocking him for the same reason on
> #wikimedia-tech. Goodness!)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

		Yours

		John Bradley

Loc: 	Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone:	+44 (0)151 708 7238
Email:  john at ontobus.co.uk
WWW:	www.ontobus.co.uk


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Explanation of Tony Sidaway's block of Pioneer-12,
	who isn't doing anything wrong

body:
Pioneer-12 disputes the application of the GFDL to his signed
contributions on talk namespace, a fact that only became apparent to me a
few minutes ago, but he has continued to contribute disputed material to
talk space.

To avoid further disputed material being contributed I have blocked him--I
know this is going to be controversial because he hasn't really done
anything "wrong", it's just a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia, so
I'm not going to engage in arguments over this, but it seems to me like
the best way to limit the potential damage.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.

body:
Aren't you banned yet?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bradley" <Johnb at ontobus.co.uk>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.

> How did you get on the arbcomm then?
>
> Note Gerrard avoids mentioning his accusation of me being
> [[User:The_Number]]. that you claim to have checked the address range. It
> is fairly typical of the kind of manipulation Gerard like to go for.
>
> I didn't impersonate you. I put a 2 after the name. I did not claim to be
you.
> It was you who decided to claim it was an attempt to impersonate you.
>
> Though of course in your world, the little children of the Wiki need
> protecting and your the man to do it.
>
>
>
> Date sent:      Mon, 16 May 2005 01:05:20 +1000
> To:             English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject:        Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.
> From:           David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Send reply to:  English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> <mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> <mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>
> > John Bradley (Johnb at ontobus.co.uk) [050516 00:59]:
> >
> > > Hi I have been accused by David Gerard of being the number, for some
> > > reason. This is more to do with Gerard continued harasment of me (User
> > > Irate) and his need to appear to be protected you lot from things you
do not
> > > understand. Her is the news it is Gerard that does not understand
anything
> > > excpect manipulation. Vote any way you like but don't vote gerard.
> >
> >
> > Should I ever run for anything, I eagerly hope for Irate to continue to
> > tell people not to vote for me.
> >
> > (The "continued harrassment" appears to be blocking him on #wikipedia
for
> > impersonating me on IRC. Apparently Tim Starling should never have been
> > given admin powers either, for blocking him for the same reason on
> > #wikimedia-tech. Goodness!)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> Yours
>
> John Bradley
>
> Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
> Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238
> Email:  john at ontobus.co.uk
> WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Tony Sidaway said:

Misposted.  Was for wikien-l. Apologies.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't vote Gerard.

body:
John Bradley said:
> I didn't impersonate you. I put a 2 after the name.

Well that's close enough.  The only purpose can have been to harass.