On 7/4/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:

An article I wrote was based heavily on an academic study that has since left the web. I emailed the author asking if it was "just moved" and that It was very useful for wikipedia.

The reply was :- "Hi Mike

I did have the report on the **** web site but **** has sadly closed about a year ago. The report should go on the new research institute's web site **** but that is taking a while to get set up. I am happy to have the report on wikipedia and have attached an amended version of it (I think the original version had names of those interviewed in and I did guarantee them confidentiality).

Hope this helps

Jo" (**** relates to other projects)

Now, I think the good Dr probably doesn't understand our GFDL system, and I am very loathe to use any of the suggested templates (no wonder researchers turn us down), do you think that I could use a licence based on this email?

Mike

If the report is published, we don't need a copy of it, just information about where it is copied. Also, if the report his published, he may not be the sole copyright holder. If the report isn't published, we can't cite it for Wikipedia.

Nice the good doctor was so agreeable, though.

KP