Talk:CommonsForce

This sounds like a good idea, but I don't see the need for a separate wiki. Subpages of this page should be adequate - you shouldn't need many pages. --Tango 18:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it should still be a separate and autonomous project, even if integrated into an existing wiki. -- JovanCormac 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I have this right. Volunteers from various countries (where different PD and CC rules apply) will surf the net and tell people from all over the world that they have mislabeled their photographs according to...umm, which country's standard? And does that standard apply to the country in which the person took the photo? Or the country the person is in, which may or may not be known? And who will be standing behind the legal interpretations being given by those volunteers? Really now. We already have one volunteer who's pushed the limits and found himself on the receiving end of some fairly serious legal interest, and I would really hate to see more in that situation. This just sounds irresponsible. Risker 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see at all how this would be irresponsible. We're not talking about legal action here, ergo there are no legal implications either. If in doubt, please re-read the proposal. -- JovanCormac 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How will one tell a Flickr user what PD laws apply to them in the particular situation of the image referred to? Many of the PD issues are not settled matters of law, so a lay person providing advice, especially without familiarity of the specific circumstances is not a good idea. Being bold within the confines of this project or group of projects is one thing. Going to other sites and encouraging others to be bold is not quite in the same sphere. Risker 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

Just a general piece of advice. "Force" sounds a tad violent, especially in other languages. I would recommend a more "peaceful" name, such as "Commons advocacy group" or something. guillom 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think we should worry about the details of the proposal first, which appears to be quite controversial, before thinking about the name (Commons Force was only intended as a placeholder anyway). -- JovanCormac 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"copyright alternatives like Creative Commons"

The only way these licenses work is by copyright. Copyright is the thing that gives them meaning. PD is the only thing not copyrighted. The phrase "all rights reserved" was more of legal thing and isn't necessarily a statement of not granting any rights to others (even the permissive BSD licenses use that phrase). Another thing to note, half of the CC licenses aren't free. Rocket000 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Status

No activity since 2009, marking as {{historical}}. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)