Talk:Wikimedia and Mandriva

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The product manager was contacted today. Waiting for an answer. Yann 16:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To be discussed[edit]

  • It is still not decided how the encyclopedia will be packaged.
Wikimedia has traditionally not funded software development, all developers are volunteers. Some of those volunteers might be prepared to work in this direction. However I don't intend to speak on their behalf or make any commitments myself until we know more about what will be involved. [TS])
  • Mandrakesoft will take the legal responsibility for this publication.
    That could be otherwise. Mandrakesoft could be the distributor and Wikimedia the publisher. It could ease distributors who may not be comfortable taking legal responsibility. When selling books, the book shop doesn't take such responsibility. Yann 00:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    It's probably a bad idea for the Wikimedia Foundation to be the publisher. It's safe legally for the Foundation to be a funding and hosting source and to operate online (See CDA and en:OCILLA). The CDA says that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the legal publisher for anything an uploader/licensor has contributed but that protection only applies online. Offline, the publisher is much more likely to have liability. Being publisher, if there is copyright infringement or libel, means that the publisher could lose all of its assets. Better to have an independent group be the publisher, with the blessing of the Wikimedia Foundation. That's good politically as well - some licensors of content and some donors are clearly more interested in online than in paper or CD or DVD, so different groups make it possible to better meet the desires of different people. The independent group could be Mandrakesoft, an established publisher or a group of licensors of content, perhaps even most of the current Wikimedia Foundation membership. Jamesday 08:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Do we include only complete articles or the whole of Wikipedia including stubs?
    • My preference would be to include everything. Many articles marked as stubs contain useful information. [TS]
  • If it will be officially distributed outside the US, they must be or there may be copyright infringement. It's not hard for a developer to generate a list of all images tagged as fair use to exclude, or of all tagged as PD, GFDL etc to instead include only tagged as acceptable images. If desired a custom Mandrakesoft tag could be added to get only wanted images or exclude only some. Jamesday 21:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Logos[edit]

With their current copyright status neither the wikipedia or the mandrakesoft logo can be included in this distribution, anyone wanna fix this? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images tagging[edit]

What is the advancement of the tagging og the images on en: ? -- Looxix 13:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BSD[edit]

Am I right in saying that my images uploaded under the BSD license will be excluded in the Mandrake copy?! Dysprosia 10:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why should they ? Yann 14:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The BSD license templates are not listed on the "included" section of the page. Dysprosia 06:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mandriva Linux 2006 is available to download for club members today. I don't see any mention of Wikipedia anywhere... Secretlondon 16:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Note[edit]

{{QualificationsandCurriculumAuthorityCopyright}}
{{LandRegistryCopyright}}
{{TeacherTrainingAuthorityCopyright}}
{{Ordnance Survey Copyright}}

Are all up for deletion on the English WikipediA and the currect status is strongly in favor of deleting them. 68.39.174.238 04:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)